# Is Rachmaninoff's 1st Symphony Actually Good?



## ManaLeak

So I was going through my first plunge of orchestral Rachmaninoff, and I came to Maazel's recording with the the Berlin Philharmonic of the first symphony. It held my attention, had some fantastically stirring and exciting moments, and left me satisfied at the close. I did some poking around for information on its history and composition, when I came to a quote by the composer himself later in life, calling it "weak, childish, strained and bombastic".
Immediately I felt insecure about having enjoyed the piece. If the composer thinks it is a poor work, doesn't it lose a great portion of its artistic stature? Listening to the same recording again, Rachmaninoff's criticisms spring from behind every winding passage and heavy chord. I'm wondering, is the opinion of the composer integral to the "worth" of a work? Or can a piece be objectively good without the approval of its creator? This topic fascinates me, and I'm curious to hear opinions on both the work in particular and the whole quasi-death-of-the-author debate.


----------



## Gordontrek

Do you like the work? If so, who cares what anyone else thinks? Enjoy it!
Tchaikovsky loathed his own 1812 Overture, Saint Saens hated his Carnival of the Animals, Holst was astonished that The Planets was his most popular work; does this mean we can't enjoy those pieces?
Also be aware that the premiere of Rachmaninov's First was a complete and utter sham. The orchestra was unprepared, the conductor was drunk- it was so bad that Rachmaninov left in the middle of it and never got over it for the rest of his life. Naturally, wouldn't he be inclined to hate it?


----------



## dieter

The reason Rachmaninov had such a low opinion of it is one of the great tragedies in music. You probably know the story - Glazounov, his teacher, who conducted the premiere, was reportedly drunk. The performance was a disaster and Rachmaninov was subsequently suicidal. This depression lasted two years, a time in which he didn't write a another note of music.
For me it's by far his greatest symphony - and I love the second to bits.


----------



## Ukko

Good? Yes, actually.


----------



## Ilarion

Well, lets see know - the 1st by Rachmaninov is not performed from publishing house copies of the original score because Rachmaninov probably burned it. Rachmaninov had himself written a 2-piano four-hand transcription of the work which forms the template from which orchestrations are made, thus everybody who is interested can get an inkling of what Rachmaninov had presented to the World. Sure, he felt it did not hold up to high standards and he had experienced an awful first performance of it, so bad was that performance that he fled the concert hall. 

The conductor Glazounov was drunk and so could not do the job correctly. Yes, Rachmaninov became so depressed that he sought the care of a psychologist, one Dr. Dahl, to whom he dedicated his world-famous 2nd piano Concerto in gratitude for the doctor's help in curing the depression. All the above and more we can derive from reading the Bertenson/Leyda bio of Rachmaninov. So, I would like to say that it is not necessary to "unlike" his 1st symph just because of the composer's misgivings about. I very much like the work and will not "unlike" it.


----------



## Pugg

Gordontrek said:


> Do you like the work? If so, who cares what anyone else thinks? Enjoy it!
> Tchaikovsky loathed his own 1812 Overture, Saint Saens hated his Carnival of the Animals, Holst was astonished that The Planets was his most popular work; does this mean we can't enjoy those pieces?
> Also be aware that the premiere of Rachmaninov's First was a complete and utter sham. The orchestra was unprepared, the conductor was drunk- it was so bad that Rachmaninov left in the middle of it and never got over it for the rest of his life. Naturally, wouldn't he be inclined to hate it?


Amen to this :tiphat:


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Agree with all the above. As others have pointed out, the roots of the composer's own resistance to it lie in the specific circumstances of its first performance and shouldn't be relied on as an objective assessment of its quality. Without agreeing with my esteemed fellow poster above that it's finer than the 2nd symphony, I certainly do agree that it's a very fine piece in its own right.


----------



## tdc

Countdown to Huilunsoittaja's entrance...


----------



## techniquest

It's my favourite of the 3 symphonies, though I marginally prefer the 'Symphonic Dances'. I agree with what's been said above: if you like it go with it. Where it stands regarding the musical definition of being any good is, for me, irrelevant.


----------



## Vasks

I find it the weakest of the three symphonies, but it still is a decent piece. I do however tire of the opening triplet motif by the time it starts the third movement.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Vasks said:


> I find it the weakest of the three symphonies, but it still is a decent piece. I do however tire of the opening triplet motif by the time it starts the third movement.


It's not the best of his three symphonies, to my hearing, but it stands up well alongside his contemporaries. The interesting thing about R's three symphonies is having the 1st from his formative years, the 2nd from his compositional peak, and the 3rd from the late-career flurry when he came back to composition after a long gap. 3rd symphony, 4th piano concerto, Paganini Rhapsody, Symphonic Dances: that was a helluva comeback!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

It's an OK symphony. It's not as thematically sound as his other symphonies, but it has some interesting colors. I mean, like what Ilarion said, the orchestration for it has been put together from surviving single parts, not the original conductor's score. It's very interesting from a technical perspective, and it definitely sounds like early Rach. It reminds me of some of the angst from his 1st Piano Concerto.


----------



## DeepR

ManaLeak said:


> So I was going through my first plunge of orchestral Rachmaninoff, and I came to Maazel's recording with the the Berlin Philharmonic of the first symphony. It held my attention, had some fantastically stirring and exciting moments, and left me satisfied at the close. I did some poking around for information on its history and composition, when I came to a quote by the composer himself later in life, calling it "weak, childish, strained and bombastic".
> Immediately I felt insecure about having enjoyed the piece. If the composer thinks it is a poor work, doesn't it lose a great portion of its artistic stature? Listening to the same recording again, Rachmaninoff's criticisms spring from behind every winding passage and heavy chord. I'm wondering, is the opinion of the composer integral to the "worth" of a work? Or can a piece be objectively good without the approval of its creator? This topic fascinates me, and I'm curious to hear opinions on both the work in particular and the whole quasi-death-of-the-author debate.


A composer's opinion of his own work can change over time for various reasons, but I bet he was enjoying it when he composed it. If it helps, think about that. Besides, no reason to feel insecure about something you enjoy. 
I think you have to go with your own instincts and gut feeling, stay true to yourself and don't let other opinions destract you from what you like, even if it's the composer himself. If you like it, it's good _to you_, that's all that really matters in the end.


----------



## techniquest

I reckon his feelings mellowed a bit in later life as he quoted a theme from the 1st movement of the 1st symphony in the 1st movement of Symphonic Dances


----------



## Strange Magic

I


Ilarion said:


> Well, lets see know - the 1st by Rachmaninov is not performed from publishing house copies of the original score because Rachmaninov probably burned it. Rachmaninov had himself written a 2-piano four-hand transcription of the work which forms the template from which orchestrations are made, thus everybody who is interested can get an inkling of what Rachmaninov had presented to the World.


According to the notes accompanying my Dutoit/Philadelphia CD of the symphony, the original orchestral parts were rediscovered in the library of the Leningrad Conservatory in 1944, and the full score was reconstructed from these parts. The second performance ever took place in Moscow in 1945, to a "tumultuous reception", and was first heard in the West in 1948 with the Philadelphia. I love it.


----------



## dieter

Huilunsoittaja said:


> It's an OK symphony. It's not as thematically sound as his other symphonies, but it has some interesting colors. I mean, like what Ilarion said, the orchestration for it has been put together from surviving single parts, not the original conductor's score. It's very interesting from a technical perspective, and it definitely sounds like early Rach. It reminds me of some of the angst from his 1st Piano Concerto.


I love its raw passion. I think it needs advocacy from a conductor who understands it. I saw Svetlanov conduct it with his Russian orchestra in Melbourne in the late 80's. Now that was something.


----------



## EdwardBast

Thank you Strange Magic: The First Symphony as currently performed _is_ just as Rachmaninoff orchestrated it. Manaleak: I would pay no attention whatever to Rachmaninoff's evaluation of it; He heard one poor, under-rehearsed performance and then attempted to destroy all memory of it, and indeed he never heard it again. As for who is to blame, I wouldn't be too quick to let the whole weight fall on Glazunov. There was a lot going against that first performance. There was the old Petersburg-Moscow rivalry, for one thing. Rachmaninoff was from the Moscow Conservatory where Tchaikovsky taught and so his premiere was taking place on enemy territory; The nationalists were centered in Petersburg. The orchestration is not very good: cluttered, too much doubling, poor horn writing (low harmonies destined to sound like blats). These problems don't mean the symphony can't sound great. It can when care is taken with the balance. But that sort of care requires careful score study and rehearsal time to sort out the balance issues. And it takes a conductor and musicians willing to put in the work and who care that the symphony be heard in the best possible light. Had Rachmaninoff been a hometown boy and a student of someone from Petersburg, perhaps it might have gotten better and more attentive treatment.

The symphony seems to have had a programmatic element. Rachmaninoff borrowed the epigram with which Tolstoy starts his Anna Karenina, "Vengeance is mine, and I will repay," and put it on the title page of the First Symphony. The opening motto of the symphony is the voice of this vengeance. The second theme in the first movement is probably a representation of Anna. In the final scene, the coda of the finale, the Anna theme is dragged down and crushed by the vengeance theme.

The symphony as a whole is one of the most tightly and systematically unified structures in the symphonic literature. The scherzo derives from the first theme of the opening movement, the slow movement derives from the second theme of the first movement, and all of the themes of the symphony return to play out their oppositions in the finale.


----------



## EdwardBast

dieter said:


> I love its raw passion. I think it needs advocacy from a conductor who understands it. I saw Svetlanov conduct it with his Russian orchestra in Melbourne in the late 80's. Now that was something.


Yes, I think this is exactly right. It is a complexly woven work and the faults in its orchestration need to be finessed by careful attention to balance.


----------



## Ilarion

Strange Magic said:


> I
> 
> According to the notes accompanying my Dutoit/Philadelphia CD of the symphony, the original orchestral parts were rediscovered in the library of the Leningrad Conservatory in 1944, and the full score was reconstructed from these parts. The second performance ever took place in Moscow in 1945, to a "tumultuous reception", and was first heard in the West in 1948 with the Philadelphia. I love it.


Hmmm,

Thanx for sharing - An interesting claim about rediscovered orchestral parts in St. Petersburg Conservatory, especially since Rachmaninov himself declared that nobody would ever find the orchestral score.


----------



## Vaneyes

St.Petersburg PO/Jansons offer a good collection of Rachy's syms & poems. :tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast

Ilarion said:


> Hmmm,
> 
> Thanx for sharing - An interesting claim about rediscovered orchestral parts in St. Petersburg Conservatory, especially since Rachmaninov himself declared that nobody would ever find the orchestral score.


The claim is true _and_ Rachmaninoff was right! No one ever did find the score. It had to be reconstructed by copying the individual orchestral parts used in the premiere performance. I suspect the reason these parts ended up in the St. Petersburg Conservatory Library is because perhaps that was the natural repository for materials used in the Russian Symphony Concerts, the series (founded by Belayev and conducted by Glazunov in those early years) in which the premiere took place. I haven't been able to verify this, but since the conservatory library was probably the greatest collection of musical materials in the city and since Glazunov taught at the conservatory, that just seems the obvious place for the materials to end up.


----------



## Grotrian

techniquest said:


> I reckon his feelings mellowed a bit in later life as he quoted a theme from the 1st movement of the 1st symphony in the 1st movement of Symphonic Dances


Yes, you may be on the mark. The way it is quoted seems to show that he had finally come to terms with some old ghosts of the past. He recalls the theme in a very tender and loving manner, and I find it one of the most moving passages in all of Rachmaninoff. It gets me every time.


----------



## Guest

ManaLeak said:


> Immediately I felt insecure about having enjoyed the piece. If the composer thinks it is a poor work, doesn't it lose a great portion of its artistic stature?


I know what you mean...and isn't this what leads to 'guilty pleasure'? You know you're not supposed to like it, but you just can't help yourself.



Ukko said:


> Good? Yes, actually.


Never mind what Rach thinks...if Ukko likes it, that's good enough for me!


----------



## EdwardBast

Grotrian said:


> Yes, you may be on the mark. The way it is quoted seems to show that he had finally come to terms with some old ghosts of the past. He recalls the theme in a very tender and loving manner, and I find it one of the most moving passages in all of Rachmaninoff. It gets me every time.


Yes! And part of what makes this quotation specially intriguing to me is that it was a totally private allusion. Rachmaninoff had every reason to believe the First Symphony was dead and buried and that no listener would ever understand it. I suppose you found the quotation from The Isle of the Dead as well?


----------



## Grotrian

EdwardBast said:


> Yes! And part of what makes this quotation specially intriguing to me is that it was a totally private allusion. Rachmaninoff had every reason to believe the First Symphony was dead and buried and that no listener would ever understand it. I suppose you found the quotation from The Isle of the Dead as well?


I must confess that the Isle quote escaped me...where is it?


----------



## Ilarion

Grotrian said:


> Yes, you may be on the mark. The way it is quoted seems to show that he had finally come to terms with some old ghosts of the past. He recalls the theme in a very tender and loving manner, and I find it one of the most moving passages in all of Rachmaninoff. It gets me every time.


Hi Grotrian,

Might you be referring to the theme that Rachmaninoff assigns to the Saxophone in the first movement of the Symphonic Dances? And what a tear-jerker it is, so full of melancholy, angst, pathos, bathos - I cry a river of tears because of it, having visited Rachmaninov's birthplace and other important places where the Master had lived and worked in Russia, and how he was cut off from his homeland, the homeland which nurtured such a giant in musical history...

Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninov, though you are "sleeping" in Mt. Kensico Cemetery in Valhalla, N.Y. - The Russian soil from whence you came knows you as Her child.


----------



## EdwardBast

Grotrian said:


> I must confess that the Isle quote escaped me...where is it?


In this performance of Symphonic Dances, the quotation from The Isle of the Dead occurs at 24:40 and continues until 25:30. It gets clearer as it goes:






The passage it quotes is heard at 7:00 in this performance of The Isle of the Dead:






For Ilarion, the theme from the first movement of the First Symphony is quoted, in the major mode, at 10:11 in the first performance linked above.


----------



## Grotrian

Thanks for that, Edward!

Ilarion, as Edward said, the quote is indeed found on the last page of the first movement, and I might add that it is in the purest of C majors and makes a very moving resolution to the movement as a whole. In a way, its resolving function also reminds me somewhat of the glowing C major theme at the end of the slow movement of the 4th Concerto, a work that generally shivers with loneliness for long stretches at a time. I think it was Stephen Hough who once said that he could never play that section of the Concerto without tears in his eyes.


----------



## SixFootScowl

> Is Rachmaninoff's 1st Symphony Actually Good?


Not only is it good, but also it is awesome!


----------



## CnC Bartok

Fritz Kobus said:


> Not only is it good, but also it is awesome!


Yup. A pretty accurate valuation of said work.


----------



## kyjo

I love the work and the main reason it has a bad reputation is because of its disastrous premiere. In particular, the finale is an absolutely thrilling movement ending with one of the of the most powerful codas in the symphonic literature - victory barely achieved through clenched teeth. I will say that the slow movement is comparatively rather uninspired - certainly not up to Rach's usual standards.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> The orchestration is not very good: cluttered, too much doubling, poor horn writing (low harmonies destined to sound like blats).


Exactly - a chronic problem with Rach's orchestral works...excessive doubling, tripling quadrupling of unison parts, endless octave 2blings....persistent use of instruments in their lower, or low-midrange - where the overtones produced are the thickest...makes for a very thick, muddy texture that obscures so much detail...I don't want to start WWIII here, but just concurring that your point is well-taken.....


----------

