# Comparing Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, and Medtner



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Excuse me if my obsessions wear on you, its just that I'm addicted to these three composers. Lets try to have an interesting apples, oranges and bananas discussion between three Russian piano composers, all titans at the keyboard literature. Rather than making this a vs. thread, I'd like to have a serious discussion with listeners who enjoy the works of all of these composers, what similarities and differences you think they possess. Obviously I have linked them together into one thread, and it should be evident that they are all Russian and from overlapping time periods with a focus on piano, at which they are all harmonically very "rich" adventurous and chordally thick.

Scriabin is perhaps the most radical and conservative at different points in his career, and the one I've explored the least. He has his own personal form, the Poeme, a lot of Sonatas, and Mazurkas, Etudes, and Preludes abound as well. His music seems to me to have the deepest and darkest feel of the three, even in his earlier works, and he tends to be the messiest seeming of them while still making very much sense. His rhythm is usually very vague.

Rachmaninoff has the tunes and more rhythmic punch than Scriabin. His harmonies, if you've ever played him(I have not, so I am citing my piano teacher on this one) are also often less consistent and easy to memorize than any of them. Its hard to determine who wins out in raw intuition, Scriabin or Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff has his unique set of works, the Etude Tableaux and also preludes, a few sonatas, and others.

Medtner has a very particular kind of tune, rather austere in character and not easy to be warm to for those not accustomed, but he is incredible in development sections and modulation. He is the thickest composer of the three, always having some contrapuntal texture going on with high chord density. His almost as good as Bach when it comes to solving problems of music theory. He pioneered his own form, the Skazki or Russian Fairy tale, and wrote more sonatas than Scriabin, and a few other odd forms were invented as well. 

What do you have to say? What are your favorite works by these composers? Are there any other composers you'd like to liken to these three? This thread is not turning out to be quite what I wanted it to be...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I don't know nearly enough Scriabin, so forget him.

Rachmaninov: although I still need to listen to more, I feel it is in his piano music where he makes up for the sentimentality that I cannot stand in his orchestral pieces and concertos. Although there's still a certain amount of uninspired lyricism and not much else (see my Melody thread!  ), they are mostly either such gripping melodies that you cannot help but adore them anyway, or they are actually deceptively easy to listen to. On closer inspection, they are more subtle and - as you suggest Clavi - intriguingly 'inconsistent'.

Medtner: certainly very thick, but then I'm a Brahms-man, so that's got to be a good thing! Having said in another thread about my distaste for Bach, I think Medtner quite clearly has counterpoint and other thick textures in such moderation that they're not a barrier to (my) listening. I have to make more effort listening to him than I do Rachmaninov, but I feel there is a greater reward at the end of it.

I am undyingly obsessed with Medtner's _March of the Paladin_ Skazka. I think I might well play it for my diploma exam just to get it out of my system.

EDIT: It was of course Clavi that introduced me to the above piece in the first place!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I really like all three. From what I've heard so far, Medtner's solo piano pieces strike me as the most aesthetically pleasing, where Scriabin seems to be the most adventurous harmonically in this area. I personally prefer Scriabin's and Medtner's works for solo piano to Rachmaninoffs. However, I really admire Rachmaninoff's Piano Concertos, Trios, and Orchestral Works. (So much so that over-all I rank him slightly higher than Medtner and Scriabin).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Interesting. I had a recent thread about some of Scriabin's music, which I have begun listening a lot more of. His piano pieces to me are lucid and approachable in a broad general sense, which I enjoy from that perspective. Rachmaninoff's piano music appears more crafted and perhaps more suited to the piano itself. Perhaps a superficial of it. Orchestral wise, Rachmaninoff perhaps.

I have a box of Medtner solo piano works, which sits as part of my disgraceful unlistened/unwatched pile. Bought it cheap.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting. I had a recent thread about some of Scriabin's music, which I have begun listening a lot more of. His piano pieces to me are lucid and approachable in a broad general sense, which I enjoy from that perspective. Rachmaninoff's piano music appears more crafted and perhaps more suited to the piano itself. Perhaps a superficial of it. Orchestral wise, Rachmaninoff perhaps.
> 
> I have a box of Medtner solo piano works, which sits as part of my disgraceful unlistened/unwatched pile. Bought it cheap.


Do try your hand at Medtner HC. It may change your life.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

And Polednice, for Scriabin, I think you'll find immediate warmth and horrible tragedy in his 3rd Piano Sonata. I've just recently got into the work and it has one of the most stunning themes I've ever heard.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

They are all very fine of course - from the usually approachable Rach to the often delicate rows of note-swarms of Medtner, and the enigmatic Scriabin. In the end, if forced to choose between them, I´d probably choose Scriabin, who seems more contemporary in relation to our time as regard the musical language, and has a wider range of expression, leaving much space for interpretation and colour. But what a trio of pianist-composers; one could spend a lifetime just studying these ...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

joen_cph said:


> But what a trio of pianist-composers; one could spend a lifetime just studying these ...


If only I could do that.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Rats. I would like to participate in this thread; I enjoy the piano music of all of them. But, I am in a snarly mood today, with no patience for anything even slightly against my grain.

No, I'm pretty sure it isn't menopause.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Scriabin is perhaps the most radical and conservative at different points in his career, and the one I've explored the least. He has his own personal form, the Poeme, a lot of Sonatas, and Mazurkas, Etudes, and Preludes abound as well. His music seems to me to have the deepest and darkest feel of the three, even in his earlier works, and he tends to be the messiest seeming of them while still making very much sense. His rhythm is usually very vague.

IMHO You shouldn't speak about Scriabin the way you do. You don't know him very well, I assume, he was *the most modern of the three*. His first works and last are totally different, he's one of my very favourite composers:

Listen to this:






Martin


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Rats. I would like to participate in this thread; I enjoy the piano music of all of them. But, I am in a snarly mood today, with no patience for anything even slightly against my grain.
> 
> No, I'm pretty sure it isn't menopause.


Perhaps today?


----------



## pmkspp (Jul 9, 2016)

Scriabin is the best of these three. He passes the high bar that only few have passed. Rachmaninoff clearly knew that. He (Rach) has some good moments evidently but far from Scriabin's best. Medtner, yes, he also a good, talented composer, right on the second line. Only five years gone by, so you might not see clearly yet, but after a good hundred there will be no doubt. Greetings.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I don't know who is the best but Rachmaninoff is by far the most listenable and enjoyable. I found Medtner to be quite boring I must confess. Scriabin is OK in small doses, especially when played by pianists like Horowitz and Richter.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Hah! 2011 was a year I didn't spend a lot of time on TC so I missed this thread I guess. I also did not know much about Medtner at the time, or Scriabin for that matter.

I like the fact all 3 existed. Those 3 alone can prove that one can be "Russian" and yet be so incredibly different from each other. Scriabin was heavily French-influenced, Medtner more German-influenced, and Rachmaninoff influenced by Eastern Europe in general, and yet, they had common artistic goals. Hooray for diversity within unity!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

pmkspp said:


> Scriabin is the best of these three. He passes the high bar that only few have passed. Rachmaninoff clearly knew that. He (Rach) has some good moments evidently but far from Scriabin's best. Medtner, yes, he also a good, talented composer, right on the second line. Only five years gone by, so you might not see clearly yet, but after a good hundred there will be no doubt. Greetings.


Nice first post, welcome to TalkClassical :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't know who's "best" either, but for my money Rachmaninoff got better and better and Scriabin got worse. Rach began as a fine melodist in the Russian manner, but his harmonic language grew ever richer (and, in his orchestral work, so did his orchestration), while Scriabin's merely grew more eccentric. I love Scriabin's early piano works; they are full-hearted, melodically exquisite, and masterly. He gradually floated off into a drugged, half-lit realm of harmonic vagueness and sameness which I personally find rather tiresome. 

Medtner seems very uneven. I'll have to get back to him.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Medtner seems very uneven. I'll have to get back to him.


Jury is still on out this composer who more often tends to be recorded in complete cycles or by specialists of more obscure music. I prefer it 'kept out' these days. The older pianists also may not have understood his aesthetic in many cases, as he is never like Brahms, Chopin, or Beethoven, nor like Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, or Shostakovich(traditional romantic interpretations don't work completely, nor do the same modern approaches) Sometimes, listening to a Medtner sonata, even from a cycle recording, can be a fascinating journey for me. Some performances stun completely, revealing so much more so much more readily, and some smaller pieces are surprisingly attractive from many immediate measures.

A space seems to need to be made for Medtner in a high level pianist who is in general well rounded in the classics, if we are to have a more fair representation. The same has been true of more mainstream composers. As a pianist(though currently fairly limited) myself who has only recently improved in some small but significant ways, I may at some point not far off learn one or two Medtner pieces, just so I can better understand him and his context for myself.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2016)

I've yet to hear any Medtner, I shall have to remedy that I think.

I've got some Rach, and I'm a bit meh on the little I've heard; there's too much bish bash bosh. Sorry if that's too technical.

Now Scriabin...his early sonatas are fine for when you want normal p) but the later ones are just sublime...to these ears at least.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't know Medtner. I do know nearly all of Rachmaninoff's and Scriabin's piano music and most of their orchestral music. I love both of these composers so much. They were both great pianists too. But if I had to choose: Scriabin. Both composed fantastic music and while Rachmaninoff's music goes to great and beautiful places, in his finest moments, Scriabin goes far beyond.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Compared to Scriabin, Rach was at a disadvantage; he was sane. He was not at war with the world (and losing), as was Medtner - another disadvantage?

Listeners search for co-resonance with the music. For some of us, sane ain't in it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> Jury is still on out this composer who more often tends to be recorded in complete cycles or by specialists of more obscure music. I prefer it 'kept out' these days. The older pianists also may not have understood his aesthetic in many cases, as he is never like Brahms, Chopin, or Beethoven, nor like Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, or Shostakovich(traditional romantic interpretations don't work completely, nor do the same modern approaches) Sometimes, listening to a Medtner sonata, even from a cycle recording, can be a fascinating journey for me. Some performances stun completely, revealing so much more so much more readily, and some smaller pieces are surprisingly attractive from many immediate measures.
> 
> A space seems to need to be made for Medtner in a high level pianist who is in general well rounded in the classics, if we are to have a more fair representation. The same has been true of more mainstream composers. As a pianist(though currently fairly limited) myself who has only recently improved in some small but significant ways, I may at some point not far off learn one or two Medtner pieces, just so I can better understand him and his context for myself.


Marc-Andre Hamelin has recorded a lot of Medtner. What do you think?


----------



## micro (Jun 18, 2016)

I don't understand nor give a .... about the technical and academic stuff but I strongly believe that Rachmaninoff and Ravel composed the most beautiful music in the weird 20th century's classical music world.


----------



## TwoPhotons (Feb 13, 2015)

I saw Hamelin play Medtner's "Night Wind" Sonata at a recital 4-5 years ago. I remember I was apprehensive beforehand because I had a friend with me who wasn't particularly into classical music, and I was afraid that, me having a vague sense of Medtner's style, they would find the piece too long and boring (I was also a little afraid of this myself as I hadn't explored that much Medtner anyway). But in the end we both enjoyed the piece immensely. It is definitely dense and not for everyone. However Medtner's melodies are fascinating to follow, and the textures and transitions can be strikingly original sometimes. I have studied two pieces of his, Op.20 No.1 and Op.26 No.1. His Forgotten Melodies are wonderful too - I am very fond of his Sonata Romantica and Sonata Reminiscenza, and his Danza Festiva is plenty of fun as well. He's just one of those composers that I love to try and sight-read through any of his pieces - there's always something interesting to discover in there.

Rachmaninoff was one of my first introductions to classical music; I used to listen to his entire Etudes-Tableaux before bedtime when I was very young. I adore his music, and I think he was genuinely a raw talent. There's a sort of inevitability in his music which resonates with a large number of people; I think Chopin also had this "gift", for example. Something like the Eb minor Op.33 No.6 etude proves to me that this is someone who had incredible control over the "elements" of sound. That said, my favourite work of his is probably "Isle of the Dead", which is ideal at capturing the tone of the setting. The usage of the 5/4 meter is remarkable in how it implies the sensation of rowing a small boat into that gaping hole inside the island. His Symphonic Dances are brilliant as well (I especially adore the third movement), but let's not forget the All-Night Vigil! This guy really had _it_. :tiphat:

Now, Scriabin is a composer which I find fascinating. His Fifth Piano Sonata is absolutely one of my top favourite works ever written for piano. Scriabin had an incredible sense of structure, and this gives his music a certain kind of profundity and "weight". And while Scriabin's music appears to have underwent a change in style throughout his lifetime, it's still all _Scriabin_ and I find it all more-or-less equally compelling! His early Mazurkas, Preludes and Etudes are stunning, and it's interesting to see how his harmonic 'inclinations' progressed from there...My favourite orchestral work of his is probably the twin-piece of the Fifth Piano Sonata, his Poem of Ecstasy (I made a reduced score of it last year in an attempt to inspect its colourful harmonies and orchestrations). From his later period, I admire his Ninth Piano Sonata in particular (I can't help but visualize a circle of witches summoning some sort of evil magic). From his earlier period, however, I find his Polonaise in B-Flat Minor extremely impactful. One of the finest polonaises ever written for piano, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, that's me done gushing on some of my favourite classical composers...time to revisit their music! :lol:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Marc-Andre Hamelin has recorded a lot of Medtner. What do you think?


Very clean technique and good intellectual understanding of the works from what I can tell. But it is a cycle, and also Marc Andre Hamelin's playing is not usually that emotionally satisfying or colorful to me. I respect that he has done all that work. Live music is often a very different experience, and I am jealous of TwoPhotons for having heard Hamelin playing 'The Night Wind' sonata, which is a very difficult work to get to know just in the available recordings of today. Rachmaninoff spoke very highly of the work.

For miniatures, Berezovsky does some really great readings of the skazki, and Milne does them all. The earlier set of Milne is pretty good for me. For an example of what a Medtner sonata could sound like, try the recording of the F minor sonata op 5 by the young Lucas Debargue. Another one I like is an older Svetlanov recording of the 'Sonata Skazka', which is a pithier work.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

That's a great post TwoPhotons. I have felt the same, but wouldn't have had the experience to put it as well as you did above. You must be a good sight reader to read Medtner! Maybe I'll get there some day... Rachmaninoff definitely had an immense raw capacity that Mozart would not have scoffed at. I adore many of the etude tableaux, and I think he also was a great orchestral composer, probably better than Scriabin and certainly better than Medtner(whose orchestral works are those three titanic piano concertos that rely on architecture, development, and piano, much more than the orchestration!). Scriabin is indeed fascinating and incomparable. The 4th piano sonata and the Poeme op 32 no. 1 are the works that I love the most.


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

I don't know, I think those three composers even shouldn't be compared. Their music is quite different in spirit, each of them pursued quite different musical vision. From my own experience - when I want to listen to Medtner, or Scriabin or Rachmaninov only that specific composer delivers what I want to hear. They are not interchangeable and because of this they're unique to me, therefore I wouldn't even dream of questioning their worth.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

There are those who prefer Scriabin's earlier work, then there are those who prefer his later work. I myself can't even choose. I like it all. Here's the wonderful Valse Op. 38 and a wonderful interpretation.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I certainly wouldn't have written this same thread nowadays. I lumped them together initially because they are all Russians who made massive contributions to the piano literature and greatly overlapped each other in their careers. As countrymen and relative contemporaries, they at least had similar influences though they didn't necessarily have as much direct influence over each other(I doubt Scriabin was much influenced at all by the other two). They also all went to the same conservatory.

And yes, the three men were all very different. Rachmaninoff and Medtner were apparently good friends.

The boards in 2010-2014 are littered with clumsy threads such as this, of my making.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

@DeepR,
I also can't choose. But works like that Valse op 38, or the 4th piano sonata, give me a very comfortable middle ground. This is the Scriabin I love the most.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Compared to Scriabin, Rach was at a disadvantage; he was sane. He was not at war with the world (and losing), as was Medtner - another disadvantage?
> 
> Listeners search for co-resonance with the music. For some of us, sane ain't in it.


I think he was definitely one of the 'saner' romantic/early modernist composers at work. But you've read about his deep depression as a young man, where he would hardly leave his couch for days and scarcely touched the piano for long stretches? The hypnosis treatment was tried for a reason, and seems to have worked on him at least. I also seem to recall reading that he wasn't the best behaved or most diligent worker as a child, and was considered problematic by adults in his life.

I think there is probably enough in there to explain why his music has so much in it, apart from his capacities as a piano player and his legendary memory for musical material.

But yeah, Medtner and Scriabin seem to have had some bigger ideas more consistently at work throughout their entire careers, and in their personalities and world views. Both had sharp edges to them, in very different ways.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

For anyone who already has an interest in Medtner and doesn't know this piece, I have always found it fascinating. He has a few other highly chromatic short pieces that superficially can remind one of Prokofiev. It is the op 34 no 3 Skazka, 'The Wood Goblin.'


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

I find Medtner more manageable for playing than Rachmaninoff. I think it's mostly the big hands thing. Medtner is very difficult, but at least he doesn't actually cause my hands pain. 

I don't really know Scriabin. I haven't really cared for the little I've heard.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

As usual with me, this is a rather untechnical comment.

Both Scriabin and Rachmaninov wrote some wonderful music. I find R the more satisfying because the overall shape of his pieces seems more coherent. With Scriabin, I find I am carried away with the music in the moment then often feel that the piece is a bit untidy, with loose ends. Medtner is different. He comes out of the same tradition, but in a different direction, often reminiscent of Prokofiev. At his best, Medtner is surprising, fascinating. At his worst, he is turgid and over-written. 

Interesting comment from Klavierspieler about playing M and R. Although I have never been more than a half-competent amateur pianist, I often found I could play R's music more readily than I expected, as if the notes fall readily under the hands. Sadly, the onset of osteoarthritis in both hands has put paid to my ambitions in that regard!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"I often found I could play R's music more readily than I expected, as if the notes fall readily under the hands. Sadly, the onset of osteoarthritis in both hands has put paid to my ambitions in that regard!"

That is analogous to my plans for the jewsharp, waylaid by broken choppers.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Ukko said:


> "I often found I could play R's music more readily than I expected, as if the notes fall readily under the hands. Sadly, the onset of osteoarthritis in both hands has put paid to my ambitions in that regard!"
> 
> That is analogous to my plans for the jewsharp, waylaid by broken choppers.


That's the saddest and most unexpected thing I have read today!


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Ukko said:


> That is analogous to my plans for the jewsharp, waylaid by broken choppers.


How about a mouthbow?


----------



## Medtnaculus (May 13, 2015)

I love all of them, but over time my preference has shifted from Rach to Scriabin as my all time favourite (still hold Medtner close to my heart though).

Recently I tried dipping back into Rach's piano works and they aren't nearly as exciting as they once were to me. The preludes especially (save from a special few). I don't think anyone can match Scriabin's sonata set. His late orchestral works trump anything from the other two (in my opinion). I used to think his middle period was him at his best but I'm slowly shifting more and more towards his later stuff. Once you warm to the language he uses there's nothing like it. I wonder what he could have achieved if he lived another 10 years... (if he still kept his sanity as well).

Along with Ravel I think Scriabin's output is the most important of the 20th century.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Klavierspieler said:


> How about a mouthbow?


I will investigate.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Ukko said:


> I will investigate.


Hey, we got freakin' Columbo over here!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Scriabin's miniatures are great, too. Op. 59 No. 1: 



How I love to dwell inside these tiny but perfect musical worlds.... half lit and harmonically vague as they are.  That's exactly why I like it so much. That intangible quality when things aren't so clear and distinct, yet very subtle, fascinating and beautiful (it's actually easy to follow along if you listen a few times). Those chords near the end give me the shivers... a glimpse of the eternal mystery. He always made perfect endings, no matter how short the piece.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Morimur said:


> Hey, we got freakin' Columbo over here!


I don't remember Columbo's Incisor Situation ever coming up.

Anyway, the info I found on the mouthbow didn't describe the intimate bow-to-mouth interface. The caps which replaced my broken incisors (broken because of wear and 'enthusiastic' biting) were expensive items - and the only attractive elements in my appearance.


----------



## pmkspp (Jul 9, 2016)

Thanks. Nice picture of you, though I can not make it bigger because of lack of permission. So it remains small but beautiful and disquieting as a Scriabin prelude.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Ukko said:


> I don't remember Columbo's Incisor Situation ever coming up.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2016)

Ukko said:


> Compared to Scriabin, Rach was at a disadvantage; he was sane.


picky, picky, picky


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

​
*Medtner*iano Concerto No. 3 in E minor, Op. 60 'Ballade'
*Scriabin*iano Concerto in F sharp minor, Op. 20

*Yevgeny Sudbin* (piano)

Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra, Andrew Litton
Medtner ans Scriabin goe hand in hand on this superb disc .


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Deletedxdxdxxxxxx. X


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Simple:

Rachmaninoff: Pure Russian

Medtner: German Russian

Scriabin: French Russian


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Pugg said:


> ​
> *Medtner*iano Concerto No. 3 in E minor, Op. 60 'Ballade'
> *Scriabin*iano Concerto in F sharp minor, Op. 20
> 
> ...


Sudbin does great work with the Medtner Piano concerti, and with Scriabin solo piano music. I wish he'd do some more solo Medtner.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Simple:
> 
> Rachmaninoff: Pure Russian
> 
> ...


Pure and simple.

It must be noted that Medtner had some strong Estonian roots as well as the German and Russian background. I believe he was a very multilingual individual, and surprisingly was interested in how speech relates to music, in a manner not so far removed from Leos Janacek, though perhaps not THAT obsessed.

Scriabin.......bin bin...


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Do you mind explaining the French thing?


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Ukko said:


> I don't remember Columbo's Incisor Situation ever coming up.
> 
> Anyway, the info I found on the mouthbow didn't describe the intimate bow-to-mouth interface. The caps which replaced my broken incisors (broken because of wear and 'enthusiastic' biting) were expensive items - and the only attractive elements in my appearance.


I have never actually seen one in real life, but from what I can make out, it's held against the cheek just to the side of the mouth rather than actually in the mouth.

From one source: "Hold the mouthbow in one hand press it firmly against your opposite side cheek, next to your mouth. Open your mouth behind the stick, and make the inside of your mouth as much as you can. Pluck, hit or strum the string with your other hand, quite close to your mouth. You change the sound by changing the size and shape of the inside of your mouth. The mouthbow is a relatively quiet and the rich harmonics."

Another: "Playing the bow is just a matter of using your mouth as a sounding box while the slat lies against your cheek. Grasp the center of the bow with one hand, and pluck the string with the other. Then open and shut your mouth, and stretch and alter its shape to change the resonating sounds. It's a lot like humming [It's not]. With a little practice, you should soon be able to play Jimmy Driftwood and Johannes Brahms with equal ease."

Some links:
http://www.noteworthyjohn.com/CaFMouthbow.htm
http://www.motherearthnews.com/diy/mouth-bow-zmaz83mjzraw.aspx









There seems to be some variation in playing style.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> Sudbin does great work with the Medtner Piano concerti, and with Scriabin solo piano music. I wish he'd do some more solo Medtner.


Who knows what the future holds, he's still young.


----------



## Medtnaculus (May 13, 2015)

I've become addicted to Scriabin's Poem of Ecstacy and Prometheus these past few days. To be honest they should be mentioned in the same vain as Stravinsky's Rite and Ravel's Daphnis.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

And now a provocative and mostly empty statement with a grain of truth: The world has been too afraid of Scriabin to admit how tremendously awesome his compositions are.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Medtnaculus said:


> I've become addicted to Scriabin's Poem of Ecstacy and Prometheus these past few days. To be honest they should be mentioned in the same vain as Stravinsky's Rite and Ravel's Daphnis.


Ah, been there as well. I listened to both hundreds of times... and I still enjoy them today. Do listen to Muti's recordings. They are, to my ears, the most transparant and rhythmically tight performances.


----------



## Medtnaculus (May 13, 2015)

DeepR said:


> Ah, been there as well. I listened to both hundreds of times... and I still enjoy them today. Do listen to Muti's recordings. They are, to my ears, the most transparant and rhythmically tight performances.


Yes, it appears you have a picture of the cover of his Prometheus as an avatar! I started with Ashkenazy's recording of his complete orchestral works and never moved as I found them quite enjoyable. These are far more clear though in bringing out all the different parts and that climax before the ending was sublime! Though I have to say I quite enjoy the more frantically paced faster sections in Ashkenazy's but maybe that down to personal taste and the fact I started with those.

The recording of Prometheus was astonishing as well. Thanks for the recommendation!


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

violadude said:


> Simple:
> 
> Medtner: German Russian


His brother (a vastly important person to him) took the German thing _rather_ seriously. Read Ljunggren: _The Russian Mefisto_, a superbly enlightening book.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> Pure and simple.
> 
> It must be noted that Medtner had some strong Estonian roots as well as the German and Russian background. I believe he was a very multilingual individual, and surprisingly was interested in how speech relates to music, in a manner not so far removed from Leos Janacek, though perhaps not THAT obsessed.
> 
> Scriabin.......bin bin...


I didn't interpret violadude's post as a comment on heritage or ethnicity.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

violadude said:


> Scriabin: French Russian


do you know something we don't or they began censoring wiki?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Scriabin


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> do you know something we don't or they began censoring wiki?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Scriabin


You are being too literal. The way I interpreted the Dude's statement was that there is something French about Scriabin's style, not his ethnicity. Likewise something vaguely Germanic about Medtner's, while Rachmaninoff was all Russian, stylistically speaking. Is that what you meant Violadude?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> You are being too literal. The way I interpreted the Dude's statement was that there is something French about Scriabin's style, not his ethnicity. Likewise something vaguely Germanic about Medtner's, while Rachmaninoff was all Russian, stylistically speaking. Is that what you meant Violadude?


Yes. Rachmaninoff's music encapsulates that brooding melancholic soul that we all think of when we think of Russian music.

Medtner captures that to a degree but has a sort of Brahmsian logic and thickness/heaviness that makes him, in my mind, related somewhat more to the German school of music than Rachmaninoff.

Scriabin's music, with its exploration of non-standard scales, penchant for color, and relatively free treatment of rhythm, reminds me of the stuff that Debussy and the other impressionists were doing around the same time, hence my designation as French Russian. From what I understand, his character/personality was rather cosmopolitan/Parisian as well.


----------



## epscoe (Apr 15, 2019)

violadude said:


> Medtner... has a sort of Brahmsian logic and thickness/heaviness


It's interesting, I've heard this before and I've also heard that Medtner idolized Beethoven, but neither of those Germans has clicked with me yet. By contrast, once I started really studying Medtner, I was so thoroughly amazed and swept away that everything else now seems bland and watered-down in comparison. Could be because I'm oblivious to less piano-centric music, and the Bs are well-regarded partly for their symphonic works. But I'm eager to be persuaded.

Rachmaninoff, at least in the better-known works, is more exciting but also more transparent than Medtner. The beauty is not hidden under layers of craftsmanship, but made more immediately accessible, leaving less to unearth on subsequent listens and therefore less of a sense of 'reward' for the dedicated listener. I hope that doesn't sound like criticism, because it's all exceptionally well-done, with great harmonies, orchestrations, and novel technique. His concerti are all masterpieces, with the first and fourth unfairly overshadowed by the second and third. Rachmaninoff was so brilliant an orchestrator that I love even his piano-free works, particularly the 3rd Symphony, Symphonic Dances, and The Bells.

I had a Scriabin phase too, some years ago now. His early music sounds too derivative, although once he hit his stride he wrote some real masterpieces. I'm still trying to learn that 4th sonata. Generally, his music doesn't feel as 'neat' and fluid under the hands as Medtner's. Also, to my ear, Scriabin consistently inhabits the same broody sound-space, and I have to be in the mood for that particular flavor of darkness. His concerto is great too, and unusually optimistic.

Medtner was a true genius. It's unfortunate that you almost have to sightread his music a few times to appreciate it, not just listen. I wish I knew why! It was certainly true for me. Music that sounded like pleasant, inoffensive tunes on the first few spins is now pure magic; knowing the music as well as I do now, I am astonished and embarrassed at how little I understood at first. It completely boggles me that a human mind can produce music that negotiates so well between large and small structure, deep beauty and emotion, and playability. This is some of the most fun I've ever had at the piano. For example, the first time I managed to get through that 3-vs-4 polymeter section in the development of the A minor sonata, I felt like a wizard. Skazka 51.3 is a blast. The finale of the Sonata Ballade, with the Muse theme hidden in RH figuration against a triumphant return of the first-movement theme, is sublime.

This color-coded G-Minor probably gave me a great push toward enlightenment: 




Recording-wise, I haven't found benchmarks for most of Medtner's work. Hamelin's rendition of the sonatas and skazkas are pretty great; Milne takes a different approach that's also worth a listen for contrast. People like Tozer, but he's thoroughly disappointing for me. Kholodenko's Night Wind is also great. The more I study the music, the less each individual performance feels like the True Interpretation. It's fun to keep looking, though.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Welcome epscoe!

The G minor sonata is my favorite work by Medtner. I like Gilels' performance of it. But I'm not enthusiastic about his music in general. I've listened to the sonatas and concertos and played through some of the skazkas. Just didn't find most of it interesting. But given your infectious enthusiasm, maybe I'll try again.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Medtner doesn't seem to be quite as widely appreciated as Rachmaninov and Scriabin, but I don't know why. There are certainly far fewer recordings of his works than of those by the other two. However, all were held in equally high regard in early 20th century pre-revolutionary Russia.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Can't say I'm familiar with Medtner at all, tho I love Scriabin and like Rachmaninov. Who is a good pianist in his works? I'm guessing I should look toward the Russians.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Zhukov in the 1st Concerto, plus I have a less conventional taste for Ponti in the 3rd Concerto (an unusual performance for sure, I'd characterize it more as impressionistic flow, rather than Russian melancholy of the heavier sort).

The Milne box on Brilliant of the solo works/sonatas is highly recommended. Hamelin is a bit more subdued in his style.

There are scattered recordings by Gilels, Richter, Yudina, Zilberstein, Ginzburg, Svetlanov, Nikolyeva, Demidenko, Alexeev, Sudbin, Lugansky, etc.

I personally find Medtner's own recordings disappointing (they are rather late).


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Can't say I'm familiar with Medtner at all, tho I love Scriabin and like Rachmaninov. Who is a good pianist in his works? I'm guessing I should look toward the Russians.


There is a CD by Nikolai Demidenko which is very good, also another one by Boris Bekhterev (the cover of which is my avatar). Medtner's Skazka (literally "Tale", although often mistranslated as "Fairytale") Op 20 No 1 is possibly my favourite solo piano work of all time.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

joen_cph said:


> I personally find Medtner's own recordings disappointing (they are rather late).


Medtner was quite advanced in years and in poor health when his recordings were made, unfortunately. Also unfortunate that Richter, Gilels and Horowitz recorded very little by him and Sofronitsky doesn't seem to have had any interest in his work at all.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Can't say I'm familiar with Medtner at all, tho I love Scriabin and like Rachmaninov. Who is a good pianist in his works? I'm guessing I should look toward the Russians.


Try Gilels for the Sonata op. 22:


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

chill782002 said:


> Sofronitsky doesn't seem to have had any interest in his work at all.


I stand corrected, Sofronitsky did apparently record Medtner's Op 20 No 2, but I've never been able to find a copy.


----------



## ojoncas (Jan 3, 2019)

I love Brahms,
I prefer Bruckner to Mahler,
I think it makes sense that Medtner is my favourite of the three.

If only there were much more recordings of his concertos!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

clavichorder said:


> Rachmaninoff has the tunes and more rhythmic punch than Scriabin.


From what I've seen, Rachmaninoff seems to be more fond of restrained, march-like rhythms. Whereas Scriabin, more freely flowing polyrhythms. Etudes Op.8 No.2, 4, Op. 42 No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8 come to mind. I'm not sure about Medtner.


----------



## Jim Norton (Sep 14, 2020)

Late Scriabin is clearly the most "modern" sounding of the three composers, although his rather histrionic style failed to make it with the Stravinsky or Schoenberg crowds. The one who wrote most beautifully for the piano, at least as confirmed by the greater public, is hand-down Rachmaninoff. And his solo works are very subtly written (excepting the C# minor and G minor preludes).


----------

