# 20th Century Symphonic Masterpieces: Part Seven - Rachmaninov's Symphony No. 2



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

20th Century Symphonic Masterpieces: Part Seven - Rachmaninov's _Symphony No. 2_



















By 1906, the time when Rachmaninov began work of the Second Symphony, he had become not only a well-known pianist and conductor, but a composer of considerable renown. Ten years before, however, the abject failure of his First Symphony had robbed him of his confidence and plunged him into a dark depression. Unable to compose for the next three years, he finally sought the help of Dr. Nicolai Dahl at the behest of relatives. Dahl used the then-new technique of hypnotism, which rapidly restored the composer's confidence. Shortly after his therapeutic sessions with Dahl, Rachmaninov produced his popular Second Piano Concerto. It must have been with some trepidation, though, that he started work on the Second Symphony, memories of the fate of the First undoubtedly still lingering in his mind.

Indeed, after composing the first draft of this symphony in 1906-1907, Rachmaninov declared his dissatisfaction with it; he would remark that it was not in his nature to compose symphonies. Nevertheless, he forced himself to rework the piece, and on February 8, 1908, he led the first performance in St. Petersburg. It was enthusiastically received, and by the end of the year, Rachmaninov was awarded the Glinka prize for his new work.

The Symphony opens with a brooding Largo introduction, drenched in mystery and ethereality; it features a motto theme that returns in various guises throughout the symphony. The agitated main theme (Allegro moderato) is followed by an alternate, more ecstatic melody, and then a rather stormy development section. The movement is quite long, especially when -- as is now the practice -- the exposition repeat is taken.

The second movement Scherzo offers a vigorous theme of seemingly brighter mood than that of most of the music in the opening panel. Yet, it is derived from the Dies irae theme, used in the Roman Catholic mass for the dead -- a theme which Rachmaninov used in almost every major composition he wrote. There is a lovely alternate melody, which is related to the motto appearing in the symphony's introduction.

The third movement (Adagio) opens a with a descending theme on strings, one of the composer's loveliest and most memorable creations. There follows an equally attractive melody on clarinet and another for violins and oboe. While to many this movement represents impassioned love music, to others it is profoundly meditative in its warm religiosity. No program was ever attached to the movement or to the Symphony by the composer.

The Allegro vivace finale is happy and triumphant in its luminous main theme, and features a lushly orchestrated, beautiful alternate melody, similar in its ecstatic demeanor to several from the preceding movements. The coda brings on an all-conquering triumphant ending, resolving any lingering doubts spawned by the work's earlier darker elements.

A typical performance of the complete version of the Second Symphony, first movement repeat included, lasts about an hour. Many recordings up to the 1970s, and even a few years beyond, included cuts, eliminating as much as 20 minutes from the score. Rachmaninov himself had been convinced in the early '30s to make cuts in the work, and in the end sanctioned nearly 20 in all. Most performances and recordings of the work today are faithful to Rachmaninov's original score.

[Article taken from All Music Guide]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to say much, but I've loved this symphony on first-listen and 15 years later, I still love it. I'd say Ashkenazy/Royal Concertgebouw would be my reference recording, but there are so many other great performances on record. My second choice would probably be one of Svetlanov's performances, but also Rozhdestvensky with the LSO. Previn also turned in a masterful performance with the LSO on EMI.


----------



## Lisztianwagner (2 mo ago)

It's one of the first Rachmaninov's works I've ever listened and one of my favourites from this composer! The 2nd Symphony is powerfully expressive, of passionate intensity and sweeping lyricism, creating an impression of slight inner melancholy beautifully evoking that poetical tragedy of the Russian spirit. Compared to the 1st Symphony, which is in some way more personal, aggressive and energetic, this one sounds a bit less original because of the strong influence of Tchaikovsky'music clearly perceivable, though it is absolutely brilliant and splendid anyway. 
Ashkenazy/Concertgebouw is my reference recording too, but I also like Jansons/St Petersburg Philharmonic.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yep - one of the great romantic Russian symphonies. But not every responds to ir; they must have hearts of stone. Not so often encountered live these days, either. There are several fine recordings. To pull it off requires three things: a great orchestra which can handle the many technical challenges, a conductor who is sympathetic but doesn't get bogged down, and lastly a recording team that can get the thing to sound well and let you hear the details and not get buried in the often dense writing. For example, at the very end: the last 8 bars have this descending passage in the upper strings and flutes that too often is buried and inaudible. It's so thrilling but the parts with the passage are up against the rest of the orchestra. Capturing it on microphone is difficult.

There are two other issues: The first is addressed in the first post: there should never again be any cuts in this score. The only one that is ok is the skip the first movement exposition repeat. But other than that, play it as written. There's a fascinating document that gives the details of the the cuts in many of the older recordings and needless to say they do not all follow the Rachmaninoff-sanctioned cuts.

Then there's my acid-test: is there an added timpani whack on the last note of the first movement? I hate that. Rachmaninoff was a genius. He was a fine orchestrator and he was a masterful conductor. If he wanted that whack he would have written it there or added it later. I don't know who started it, but it sounds awful. The original last note with just the cellos and basses grunting it out is perfect. And so many conductors ruin the effect. 

If I could only keep one recording it would have to be David Zinman with the Baltimore Symphony on Telarc. Complete, including the first movement repeat. No timpani whack. And a stellar Telarc recording where the inner details are present. And I also really like the Charles Dutoit recording with Philadelphia on Decca. He really gets it, too.


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

Perhaps my first great love in recorded classical music. Previn had a great sensitivity to this piece, and even today it sparkles.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Not a fan. It has its moments but it fails to hold my attention for the most part.

Signed "Heart of Stone, TFOT"


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

Well, you can have "The Bells" then.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

PeterKC said:


> Well, you can have "The Bells" then.


No thanks but I'll take The Isle of the Dead any time over the 2nd symphony.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

PeterKC said:


> Well, you can have "The Bells" then.


FYI, I love _The Bells_ and the 2nd symphony. Magnificent pieces!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

The cuts are nowhere near extensive enough!! Lol😆🤣


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No thanks but I'll take The Isle of the Dead any time over the 2nd symphony.


Like that one too.


Neo Romanza said:


> FYI, I love _The Bells_ and the 2nd symphony. Magnificent pieces!


 Me too! Symphonic dances as well.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

Great Symphony! I have the Previn on Telarc


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I know I'm in the minority here in preferring the 1st symphony over the 2nd. 
The 3rd is pretty forgettable.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I know I'm in the minority here in preferring the 1st symphony over the 2nd.
> The 3rd is pretty forgettable.


I find it difficult to include any of them as "Symphonic Masterpieces"....


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Heck148 said:


> I find it difficult to include any of them as "Symphonic Masterpieces"....


I didn't say his 1st was a masterpiece ... just that I prefer it to the 2nd.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I didn't say his 1st was a masterpiece ... just that I prefer it to the 2nd.


I realize that 😀


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

A lot of Rachmaninov is a waste of space (I've never really rated much of the stuff for piano) but the first two symphonies are among my favourites. The first symphony is among his greatest works-- a magnificent, tautly argued piece of power and edge-of-a breakdown passion. But the second is perhaps the ultimate "romantic" symphony (well I thought that until I heard Brincken's 4th which competes with it for the title). Like everyone, I heard Previn's account early on but at the moment, my reference is Sanderling's last outing with a symphony he frequently performed live -- the Philharmonia one. Although the finale is a little sluggish, the intensity of the first and third movements more than make up for it. Svetlanov is good, too.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

dko22 said:


> A lot of Rachmaninov is a waste of space...


After reading your full post, I think this is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

possibly, but as it's virtually inconceivable that you know any of what little piano music I have written and I freely admit his first two symphonies (and The Bells) are among the most treasured in the repertoire and comfortably surpass any of mine, I'm not sure of your exact point? Please feel free to expand!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

dko22 said:


> possibly, but as it's virtually inconceivable that you know any of what little piano music I have written and I freely admit his first two symphonies (and The Bells) are among the most treasured in the repertoire and comfortably surpass any of mine, I'm not sure of your exact point? Please feel free to expand!


The reason I made that post to you is you came here opining that a lot of Rachmaninov was a "waste of space" to you, but then you turnaround and try to somehow redeem this assertion by praising his 2nd symphony. I'm merely commenting on how wasteful your post was to me, because you have two comments that cancel the other out. It's like saying "I just saw the most disgusting, revolting woman at the store today, but...she had some cool looking shoes." The damage was done before you could even bother giving a compliment.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

they don't cancel each other out in the least. My view -- which of course you and anyone else is free to disagree with -- is that his piano music has in general far too much empty virtuosity and/or (particularly in the concertos) too much sentimentality. His later orchestral music can tend in the same direction. Unlike many, I don't find his _Symphonic Dances_ very interesting. His early music doesn't suffer from that at all, though, and there is the theory that the catastrophic reception of his first symphony permanently broke him. I'm not sure I subscribe to this entirely -- after all _The Bells_ is a masterpiece and by no means an early work -- but it has perhaps something going for it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

the piano concerto version plays in my head rather than the symphony version whenever I think of this work.




But I know how much mbhaub detests it.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

dko22 said:


> they don't cancel each other out in the least. My view -- which of course you and anyone else is free to disagree with -- is that his piano music has in general far too much empty virtuosity and/or (particularly in the concertos) too much sentimentality. His later orchestral music can tend in the same direction. Unlike many, I don't find his _Symphonic Dances_ very interesting. His early music doesn't suffer from that at all, though, and there is the theory that the catastrophic reception of his first symphony permanently broke him. I'm not sure I subscribe to this entirely -- after all _The Bells_ is a masterpiece and by no means an early work -- but it has perhaps something going for it.


You can spin it however you wish. You came on this thread with a negative opening comment and you expect me to just nod along with what you're writing. Not going to happen. You're free to your opinion just as I'm free to tell you that I don't subscribe to it.


----------

