# Why Prokofiev hated Rachmaninov's piano music...



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Awhile back, if my memory serves me, I read Prokofiev's statement about Rachmaninov's piano music: "I Hate It!" As to why it was so? "Because Glazunov(Conservatory Professor) made me play those blasted Etudes-Tableaux over and over and over again and again and again.

With this in mind I perceive my slight animus towards Prokofiev's music. I don't hate it outright, just skeptical...


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2015)

I could find no corroboration for this memory of yours.

It would be nice to have something more solid than a memory.

But even so, if it this memory were accurate, how does that correlate to any animus towards Prokofiev's music, slight or otherwise?

And "skeptical" just baffles. Music is not trying to make any claims or to convince you of anything, so "skeptical" seems hardly le mot juste.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

some guy said:


> I could find no corroboration for this memory of yours.
> 
> It would be nice to have something more solid than a memory.
> 
> ...


_"It would be nice to have something more solid than a memory."_

So what is to be done?- to shut up, to expound no opinions or evaluations, and die?

Perhaps for 'some.'

Never for Divas though.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

It's actually a good question: why would this (if true) have any effect on your attitude towards Prokofiev's music? It's still sounds the same.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

If the below is "hating", I wish he'd hated Rachmaninov's music some more.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I enjoy the Etudes-Tableaux. However, I have not had to listen to them "over and over and over again". And concentrating too. The sensation must be like repeated "Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream; merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. _Argh!_

I have had considerable pleasure in listening to Prokofieff's music. It has inventive twists, mixes bitter with sweet well, and is often sneakily melodic; and it _always_ goes somewhere.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I like a lot of Rachmaninoff's pieces that are shorter than five minutes. Longer than that, my attention starts to wander. He was very good at piano miniatures.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

some guy said:


> I could find no corroboration for this memory of yours.
> 
> It would be nice to have something more solid than a memory.
> 
> ...


Someguy,

I take to heart your approbation of my thread inlay w/ my serving/non-serving memory. I will try to find where I read about Prokofiev's disgust with Rachmaninov's piano music...


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2015)

Ilarion said:


> Someguy,
> 
> I take to heart your approbation of my thread inlay w/ my serving/non-serving memory. I will try to find where I read about Prokofiev's disgust with Rachmaninov's piano music...


Cool. I'd love to know, and the interwebs was just no help at all.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I have read about the relationship between Rachmaninov and Prokofiev. On the occasion of Scriabin's death, Rachmaninov played a all-Scriabin piano recital in tribute to him. Prokofiev had been known to be gossiping about town afterwards that Rachmaninov's playing at that recital was basically rubbish, that he hadn't done Scriabin justice. On a later occasion when they met, Prokofiev started praising Rachmaninov for the concert, upon which Rachmaninov replied coolly, not warming to the compliment that was obviously false (implying that he had heard about Prokofiev's genuine opinions). 

I do admire Rachmaninov's stoicism on occasions like this, but of course he was used to this, throughout his career he would get criticism from all quarters - Russian nationalists saying he was too cosmopolitan, and also various philisitines, both conservative and Modernist alike. There where of course many who where envious of his fame and success (the tall poppy syndrome). The test of time though has proved that the audiences where right and his critics wrong, but Rachmaninov also had his admirers in the music world too. 

Anyway I'll stop now since this forum most people are less interested in history and it seems more in repertoire (those lists) and a kind of formalistic technocracy (the endless discussions on key modulations and tone rows). Good for them, but since I'm an ignorant pleb I'll just shut up and stop giving history lessons to my betters!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Ilarion said:


> Awhile back, if my memory serves me, I read Prokofiev's statement about Rachmaninov's piano music: "I Hate It!" As to why it was so? "Because Glazunov(Conservatory Professor) made me play those blasted Etudes-Tableaux over and over and over again and again and again.
> 
> With this in mind I perceive my slight animus towards Prokofiev's music. I don't hate it outright, just skeptical...


I always like reading about one composer expressing an opinion about another's music. Reveals about their contemporary musical tastes, prejudice, rivalry, praise, admiration or whatevers. Interesting.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I remember a story about Rachmaninoff and Medtner (they were friends) together attending a very early solo performance by Prokofiev — I think he played the toccata, among other things. Medtner apparently expressed strongly negative opinions while Rachmaninoff just sat in stony silence. I don't remember all the details, but I remember being disappointed that Rachmaninoff failed to recognize and encourage the obvious talent of the young Prokofiev. Perhaps he just didn't wish to gainsay his friend Medtner? Anyway, it is possible Prokofiev remembered this incident. Nevertheless, criticizing Rachmaninoff's benefit recital for Scriabin's family was uncool. Rachmaninoff and Scriabin were classmates in the Moscow Conservatory and I'm sure he did his best in his usual conscientious way with music that was probably not entirely congenial to him.


----------



## pianississimo (Nov 24, 2014)

I was going to use this example too. I have it on cd. He plays this piece like nobody else I've ever heard and I think we can put this down to it being a composer's interpretation. An artist who understood more closely what was being expressed by the composer shows us a totally different side to one of Rachmaninov's most enduring solo works. I can't believe he hated it. 


Skilmarilion said:


> If the below is "hating", I wish he'd hated Rachmaninov's music some more.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

It's cool that much of those late 19th/early 20th century Russian composers knew each other, closely or not. The well known and the more obscure composers, they're all connected one way or another. There seems to be a lot of documentation about it. I once lost myself on google books just reading little bits here and there. You'll find many little facts about the relationship between these Russian composers. Amazing, productive times and so much fine music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Maybe Prokofiev had small hands?


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2015)

Sid James said:


> I have read about the relationship between Rachmaninov and Prokofiev. On the occasion of Scriabin's death, Rachmaninov played a all-Scriabin piano recital in tribute to him. Prokofiev had been known to be gossiping about town afterwards that Rachmaninov's playing at that recital was basically rubbish, that he hadn't done Scriabin justice. On a later occasion when they met, Prokofiev started praising Rachmaninov for the concert, upon which Rachmaninov replied coolly, not warming to the compliment that was obviously false (implying that he had heard about Prokofiev's genuine opinions).
> 
> I do admire Rachmaninov's stoicism on occasions like this, but of course he was used to this, throughout his career he would get criticism from all quarters - Russian nationalists saying he was too cosmopolitan, and also various philisitines, both conservative and Modernist alike. There where of course many who where envious of his fame and success (the tall poppy syndrome). The test of time though has proved that the audiences where right and his critics wrong, but Rachmaninov also had his admirers in the music world too.
> 
> Anyway I'll stop now since this forum most people are less interested in history and it seems more in repertoire (those lists) and a kind of formalistic technocracy (the endless discussions on key modulations and tone rows). Good for them, but since I'm an ignorant pleb I'll just shut up and stop giving history lessons to my betters!


But Sid, nothing in this post constitutes anything like history. It's much closer to gossip (exemplified in the words "had been known to be," for one), much closer to that than what Prokofiev has been characterized as having done.

In any event, every famous person gets criticism from all quarters. Prokofiev, too. That's no thing.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Now to continue on the evidence trail of Prokofiev vs Rachmaninov:

On page 196 of Sergei Bertenson and Jay Leyda's biography of Rachmaninov we find: "In 1945, speaking to Alexander Werth
of his musical tastes, Prokofiev said, Rachmaninov---well, I'd rather not say anything about him. The truth is we hated each other's guts."

So why the animus betwixt the composers? I want to know - maybe the question will come to a dead-end. Imo the Etudes-Tableaux of Rachmaninov are good preparatory material to conquer before attempting Rachmaninov's 3rd piano concerto. If Prokofiev was tasked to play them while at the Conservatory it most likely helped him to be quite the accomplished pianist.

The investigation continues...


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2015)

Ah, now this is something.

But, as you say, it might just turn into a dead-end. After all, different people do hate each others guts. Even here at TC, we see that.

Well, keep us updated. I'm in exile* with maybe a half dozen of my books, none of them about music. So this kind of thing is fun for me to follow. I don't have my books, but I do have internet access to Ilarion and _his_ books!

*It's fine. Self-imposed. Even better, self-chosen.

But since I'm on the move, it's difficult to schlepp books around. My CDs and LPs were easy. A few happy months burning and ripping and voila, a couple of external hard drives with sound files. And no matter how many sound files I add, they remain the same size and the same weight. It's beauty.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

some guy said:


> Ah, now this is something.
> 
> But, as you say, it might just turn into a dead-end. After all, different people do hate each others guts. Even here at TC, we see that.
> 
> ...


I am as interested as you and others are in getting clarity about the animosity. So, I continue with my quest...Hang in there gentlepeople.............

Btw, I don't have too many books - quite spare actually, but then again I have access to the hypergigantic Russian State Library with 39 million books just two subway stops from my doorstep(about 5 km).


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but perhaps you'd be interested in this article detailing Rachmaninoff's and Prokofiev's relationship and musical opinion of each other

http://simonlife.com/2010/03/rachmaninoff-and-prokofiev/


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2015)

Interesting though that in this account (that is, the account that the blogger reports, which is from the same book that Ilarion has mentioned), it's Prokofiev who is cool and fair and Rachmaninoff who is kind of a pill.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

some guy said:


> Interesting though that in this account (that is, the account that the blogger reports, which is from the same book that Ilarion has mentioned), it's Prokofiev who is cool and fair and Rachmaninoff who is kind of a pill.


Prokofiev was always a pill, and it is documented from childhood on. Just read his autobiography describing his behavior toward his fellow students at the St. Petersburg Conservatory. Rachmaninoff was quite reserved and therefore harder to read. As for the encounter after the Scriabin concert: It is really impossible to know how to interpret the exchange. Everything depends on tone of voice, expression, and probably a lot of behind the scenes stuff we will never know.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> Prokofiev was always a pill, and it is documented from childhood on. Just read his autobiography describing his behavior toward his fellow students at the St. Petersburg Conservatory. Rachmaninoff was quite reserved and therefore harder to read. As for the encounter after the Scriabin concert: It is really impossible to know how to interpret the exchange. Everything depends on tone of voice, expression, and probably a lot of behind the scenes stuff we will never know.


I have read a little about Prokofiev, and listened to a lot of his music - and have concluded that he believed himself superior in, ah, _sharpness of intellect_, to approximately everybody with whom he came in contact. He had to camouflage that with Stalin and the commissars, but it is still there in his music, witness the Symphony Concertante. Even Symphony No. 1 is not just clever, it is subtly and deliberately overdone.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

May be interesting to note that according to wikipedia the second set of Etudes-Tableaux was made after Rachmaninoff took a closer look at the music of both Scriabin and Prokofiev.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> But Sid, *nothing in this post constitutes anything like history*. It's much closer to gossip (exemplified in the words "had been known to be," for one), much closer to that than what Prokofiev has been characterized as having done.
> 
> In any event, every famous person gets criticism from all quarters. Prokofiev, too. That's no thing.


It was in a biography I read about Rachmaninov. Are you saying I'm a liar? Anyway, I am through with these threads, from now on I will only post on current listening. If I make my own threads, I won't be making much effort to talk to you or others of your ideological persuasion on this forum. And btw, Ilarion is very much like my old nemesis PetrB. Have you come back, buddy?

Anyway, here's more lying from me, one of Adorno's famous put down of Rachmaninov. PetrB was on that thread and gave me hell for it, so you can see why this is not going to happen again now. Philistine Modernist ideology like that gets plenty of apologists on this forum, doesn't it some guy?

http://www.talkclassical.com/29862-killing-contemporary-music-13.html#post584320

The Adorno quote:

_There are passages in his works for young people and for student concerts which are grandoise and over-written. Small hands make a show of being strong; children imitate adults - wherever possible virtuosos who are swotting up on Liszt. It all sounds extremely heavy and in any case very loud. But it is sadly easy; a child player well knows that stupendous passages cannot go wrong and is sure in advance of an effortless triumph. Rakhmaninov's C sharp minor Prelude provides infantile adults with the same childish triumph. It owes its popularity to listeners who identify with the player and know they could play it just as well. In marvelling at the power which masters the four-note chords in fourfold fortissimo, they are marvelling at themselves. In their imagination they grow massive hands. Psychoanalysisk discovered the Nero complex; the Prelude already exemplified it._


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> Prokofiev was always a pill, and it is documented from childhood on. Just read his autobiography describing his behavior toward his fellow students at the St. Petersburg Conservatory. Rachmaninoff was quite reserved and therefore harder to read. As for the encounter after the Scriabin concert: It is really impossible to know how to interpret the exchange. Everything depends on tone of voice, expression, and probably a lot of behind the scenes stuff we will never know.


Rachmaninov was one of the very few classical composers who I'd call a decent human being. He and Medtner, who you mentioned before, had a big falling out. Yet when Medtner was in financial trouble Rachmaninov gave him money. Gave him that is, not loaned to him. It never had to be paid back. This was after a concert impresario left Medtner high and dry after a big tour.

Rachmaninov was indeed a fellow student with Scriabin. He most often included a piece by Scriabin in his rectials. He was influenced by Scriabin to an extent, as well as others like Stravinsky. It didn't mean he unreservedly liked everything about their music, but he could be judicious in his choices like anyone else.

Once Scriabin came drunk to a rehearsal where Rachmaninov was conducting. That's one of the few times Rachmaninov lost his cool at anybody. But things where patched up, and as I mentioned Rachmaninov played in tribute to him when Scriabin died.

As I've said many times on the forum, Rachmaninov tended to keep his opinions about other composers to himself, and mostly talked about his own music. Now if that's generally rare, then its doubly or triply rare compared to others of his time, who obviously had little scruples about decorum. Stravinsky was the worst gossiper, and I suspect this thread is a counter thread to the one about Igor's views on Messiaen. It can even be bait lain for me by this Ilaron/PetrB. That was the modus operandi of he who derided me as "Mr. Context." How nice and also how lame, but tha'ts what I expect on this forum in relation to history: using it as part of an agenda. That's not what history should be about, but forget it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Sid James said:


> And btw, Ilarion is very much like my old nemesis PetrB. Have you come back, buddy?


I see very little similarity between the two individuals.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I suppose that Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky and the rest were much like the rest of us: mixed bags. As Shostakovich (a pretty mixed bag himself) said about music: "For some reason, people think that music must tell us only about the pinnacles of the human spirit, or at least about highly romantic villains. But there are very few heroes or villains. Most people are average, neither black nor white. They're gray. A dirty shade of gray."

Why should we expect otherwise?


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> I'm not sure how relevant this is, but perhaps you'd be interested in this article detailing Rachmaninoff's and Prokofiev's relationship and musical opinion of each other
> 
> http://simonlife.com/2010/03/rachmaninoff-and-prokofiev/


Thanx a million for dredging up the article link - I read it awhile back and saved it on icloud drive - It can help to partially understand the animosity.

Strange thing - I was compared with some other member...I will never "give anyone hell" in any thread - Why? Because I am fallible. I might sometimes be supercurious and prod for some more info but I will never "character-assassinate".


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Bulldog said:


> I see very little similarity between the two individuals.


Well, whatever you think, I am amongst the best here to judge since I was at the wrong end of PetrB's invective many times.



Ilarion said:


> ...
> Strange thing - I was compared with some other member...I will never "give anyone hell" in any thread - Why? Because I am fallible. I might sometimes be supercurious and prod for some more info but I will never "character-assassinate".


Well that's good, but if you where him, you'd say that. In any case I think that your thread was a counter of what I said a few days back on the one about Stravinsky and Messiaen.

It doesn't matter now, I have made plenty of protests for what are my rights, but I am retreating to current listening. Not by sheer choice mind you, but in light of what I think is best for me in terms of the present circumstances of the forum.



Sid James said:


> ...
> I remember reading an anecdote that was similar between Rachmaninov and Prokofiev. He tended not to like those who gossiped behind his back and duplicitously complimented him in person. Prokofiev came to him with such a compliment, and Rachmaninov replied in a cold manner, not warming to praise which he saw as being false....


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well, whatever you think, I am amongst the best here to judge since I was at the wrong end of PetrB's invective many times.


Sorry, your judgment is pretty bad if you think Ilarion sounds like PetrB. You only have to go back a week or so to see Ilarion saying something nice about Shostakovich and admitting to buying a Bruckner CD (!). That ain't PetrB.

Hey Ilarion, what do you think of Medtner?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Sid James said:


> *Well, whatever you think, I am amongst the best here to judge since I was at the wrong end of PetrB's invective many times.*
> 
> Well that's good, but if you where him, you'd say that. In any case I think that your thread was a counter of what I said a few days back on the one about Stravinsky and Messiaen.
> 
> It doesn't matter now, I have made plenty of protests for what are my rights, but I am retreating to current listening. Not by sheer choice mind you, but in light of what I think is best for me in terms of the present circumstances of the forum.


Sid, who cares what other people think? I've actually disagreed more than agreed with PetrB countless times on the boards but I had wonderful PM exchanges with him all the same.

'I' like your posts, incidentally.

A million 'likes' is a statistic.

A 'like' from the Marschallin is sublime. 
_
;D_


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

GreenMamba said:


> Sorry, your judgment is pretty bad if you think Ilarion sounds like PetrB. You only have to go back a week or so to see Ilarion saying something nice about Shostakovich and admitting to buying a Bruckner CD (!). That ain't PetrB.
> 
> Hey Ilarion, what do you think of Medtner?


I didn't realise that but he would do that, wouldn't he? Be the opposite of who he was. But whatever. ComposerOfAvantGarde did the same thing a couple of weeks back. Once I made some valid arguments on the Cage thread, he did a counter thread about how many pieces by him people had heard. I mean, who cares? Cage didn't even believe in recordings being made of his music, so its not even a legitimate counter thread by that standard. Anyway, this is a total waste of time. I'm not talking to brick walls but to various versions of Modernist philistinism.

Thanks for your compliments too, Marschallin Blair.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DeepR said:


> May be interesting to note that according to wikipedia the second set of Etudes-Tableaux was made after Rachmaninoff took a closer look at the music of both Scriabin and Prokofiev.


Yes, in the Etudes Op. 39 and the songs Op. 38, the last music he wrote in Russia before his career as a composer was put on hold, Rachmaninoff's language was changing and becoming more adventurous. I'm not sure about any specific influence from Scriabin or Prokofiev, however - at least I don't hear it in these works. I suspect it was from an awareness and appreciation of a wider range of music.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I didn't realise that but he would do that, wouldn't he?


No, I don't think he would.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Philistine Modernist ideology like that gets plenty of apologists on this forum, doesn't it some guy?
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/29862-killing-contemporary-music-13.html#post584320
> 
> ...


I read some of the other thread as well and some of the discussion of the famous Prelude in C# minor is just silly, especially the opinion that Rachmaninoff was writing for the lowest common denominator and sentiments to this effect. He wrote the thing as a teenager. Later in life, having played it as an obligatory encore after innumerable performances over a long career, he defined heaven as "anyplace the C# minor prelude isn't" (not sure the wording of that is exactly right). He was probably at least as critical of the thing as Adorno. Making any judgment about Rachmaninoff's motives and relationship to his audience based on this piece is either a sign of ignorance or is just resentment of his popularity. Rachmaninoff's total (direct) monetary reward for this best-selling piece of piano music was 20 rubles - he sold the rights, also as a teenager.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Sid James said:


> Well, whatever you think, I am amongst the best here to judge since I was at the wrong end of PetrB's invective many times.
> 
> Well that's good, but if you where him, you'd say that. In any case I think that your thread was a counter of what I said a few days back on the one about Stravinsky and Messiaen.
> 
> It doesn't matter now, I have made plenty of protests for what are my rights, but I am retreating to current listening. Not by sheer choice mind you, but in light of what I think is best for me in terms of the present circumstances of the forum.


I have not even bothered to look at the Stravinsky / Messiaen thread, so I don't even know what you are talking about.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ilarion said:


> I have not even bothered to look at the Stravinsky / Messiaen thread, so I don't even know what you are talking about.


My apologies and I do hope that the information I provided was of interest or perhaps of some use to you.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> I read some of the other thread as well and some of the discussion of the famous Prelude in C# minor is just silly, especially the opinion that Rachmaninoff was writing for the lowest common denominator and sentiments to this effect. He wrote the thing as a teenager. Later in life, having played it as an obligatory encore after innumerable performances over a long career, he defined heaven as "anyplace the C# minor prelude isn't" (not sure the wording of that is exactly right). He was probably at least as critical of the thing as Adorno. Making any judgment about Rachmaninoff's motives and relationship to his audience based on this piece is either a sign of ignorance or is just resentment of his popularity. Rachmaninoff's total (direct) monetary reward for this best-selling piece of piano music was 20 rubles - he sold the rights, also as a teenager.


Yes Rachmaninov did kick himself for selling the rights to that for a meagre amount, similar to what Sibelius did with Valse Triste. In any case, Adorno wasn't his only critic, as I said Rachmaninov was at the wrong end of the stick with critics of many ideological persuasions all his life.

When that old thread was made, there was a situation here of a few members who used Rachmaninov as a punching bag, and not only on that thread. I can provide examples, but I think its better not to go there. I find it primitive to to do this sort of thing, rubbish a composer and by implication those who like his music.

In any case, that's the past. Rachmaninov's reputation today stands firm, and it has been on the rise since around the 1970's when new critical assessments where made of his and others music. Basically, the hard core Modernist ideology was to some extent challenged, and concerning composers like Rachmaninov, Sibelius, and Puccini time has proven the audiences right and the critics wrong.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Yes Rachmaninov did kick himself for selling the rights to that for a meagre amount, similar to what Sibelius did with Valse Triste. In any case, Adorno wasn't his only critic, as I said Rachmaninov was at the wrong end of the stick with critics of many ideological persuasions all his life.
> 
> When that old thread was made, there was a situation here of a few members who used Rachmaninov as a punching bag, and not only on that thread. I can provide examples, but I think its better not to go there. I find it primitive to to do this sort of thing, rubbish a composer and by implication those who like his music.
> 
> In any case, that's the past. Rachmaninov's reputation today stands firm, and it has been on the rise since around the 1970's when new critical assessments where made of his and others music. Basically, the hard core Modernist ideology was to some extent challenged, and concerning composers like Rachmaninov, Sibelius, and Puccini time has proven the audiences right and the critics wrong.


The 'Adorno/Messiaen' school wasn't the only 'hard core ideology' of the 20 C; it may have been more theory oriented and 'on paper' than the earlier ones, but I wouldn't know about that. I also don't _know_ that a 'school' must have, ah, 'schoolable' subjects, but that's my take on its rejection of Bartók's music. Those rejections don't by themselves place Rachmaninov's and Bartók's methodologies in the same cubbyhole... or do they?

And - isn't all of this ancient history? Interesting, maybe even worth examining for 'enlightenment'; but is it something to get defensive about?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ukko said:


> The 'Adorno/Messiaen' school wasn't the only 'hard core ideology' of the 20 C; it may have been more theory oriented and 'on paper' than the earlier ones, but I wouldn't know about that. I also don't _know_ that a 'school' must have, ah, 'schoolable' subjects, but that's my take on its rejection of Bartók's music. Those rejections don't by themselves place Rachmaninov's and Bartók's methodologies in the same cubbyhole... or do they?


The cubbyholes as you call them kept changing. Early in his career, Rachmaninov was singled out by the Russian nationalists as being not Russian enough (similar to Tchaikovsky, who was a supporter of Rachmaninov). As he became more adventurous - such as his 3rd concerto - conservatives had a go at him. Later in his career, his music attracted criticism for not being Modern enough. I can give examples, but basically he did have some musicians on side (a big one being Horowitz, another one was Godowsky) and as I mentioned he tended to be successful with audiences.

Rachmaninov's cardinal sin amongst Modernists was putting emotion ahead of technique. Another like that was Schoenberg, and if you compare their views on composing music, their values and artistic goals in terms of aesthetics where quite similar. I could type those here from books I have, or even make a separate thread discussing them, but see below for why not!



> And - isn't all of this ancient history? Interesting, maybe even worth examining for 'enlightenment'; but is it something to get defensive about?


Its all ancient history as regards this forum, which doesn't value history so whatever. So who cares anyway? I am not planning to take part in threads like this, in the past I was required to take two hours and write a series of essays validating myself. That's no fun, particularly since I am amongst the perpetually ignorant and to make matters worse, I put irrelevant, useless and extranous socio-political-historical stuff ahead of music. We can't have that around here, sullying the purity of the forum like that! Waste of time on my part anyway.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I'm pretty sure you know you aren't inferior to anyone here in any way generally useful on this board. I use 'generally useful' to separate out the musicologist forums, which (I hope) are proving useful to musicologists. The rest of us have to make do with general knowledge, of which you have an abundance.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ukko said:


> I'm pretty sure you know you aren't inferior to anyone here in any way generally useful on this board. I use 'generally useful' to separate out the musicologist forums, which (I hope) are proving useful to musicologists. The rest of us have to make do with general knowledge, of which you have an abundance.


Thanks for your compliments and at this stage I will still contribute to current listening.

The issue here is that discussions on this forum are less polarised than they where with regards to composers like Rachmaninov, but its been long term and very difficult. We are no longer in the territory of Adorno or Blom with regards to assessing Rachmaninov's legacy, but that has taken many battles during 2013-14 to achieve.

Whenever I came on a thread like this I was countering views that I think where prevalent in the 1950's. At that time, Bruno Walter referred to Modernist philistinism, a glorification of novelty over everything else. Aaron Copland talked of a Lord of the Flies situation, of younger generations in music being like warring tribes on an island, having less regard for history compared to previous generations.

We're in 2015 now, and it is logical that one can enjoy whatever composers one likes, be it Prokofiev or Rachmaninov. Composers and musicians themselves have spoken out in favour of diversity. In practice, that's not easy to get, but maybe in the long term history can be understood and accepted. That's all I see as important, whatever interpretations or agendas are attached are separate.

But history in my view is part of music, and that's not been a popular view here maybe because history is about what actually happened. If we can't discuss that without recriminations and casting aspersions, then I don't want any part of it. But that's just my personal choice, people can discuss whatever topics they want.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

some guy said:


> I could find no corroboration for this memory of yours.
> 
> It would be nice to have something more solid than a memory.
> 
> ...


 I have read in many places that Prokofiev was openly critical of Rachmaninoff.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"...people can discuss whatever topics they want." That's a good thing, ain't it? And we aren't all trapped together in a small echoing room - we can ignore what we aren't interested in 'hearing'. Many of my past posts have fallen into the maw of the database without generating a single response - sometimes an indication of good judgement on the part of our members - but I got it said, so I am good with it. Just yesterday I 'spoke for' music by Therese Ulvo, and I am glad.

Speak, and I will 'hear', Sid... well, some of it anyway; sometimes you wear me down.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Sid James said:


> The cubbyholes as you call them kept changing. Early in his career, Rachmaninov was singled out by the Russian nationalists as being not Russian enough (similar to Tchaikovsky, who was a supporter of Rachmaninov). As he became more adventurous - such as his 3rd concerto - conservatives had a go at him. Later in his career, his music attracted criticism for not being Modern enough. I can give examples, …
> 
> Rachmaninov's cardinal sin amongst Modernists was putting emotion ahead of technique.


Rachmaninoff was more or less panned as a nonentity in most books on modern music and elsewhere in the mid-20thc:

Stravinsky (1959): "Rachmaninov's earliest compositions … were 'water colours', songs and piano pieces freshly influenced by Tchaikovksy. Then at twenty-five he turned to 'oils' and became a very old composer indeed."

Laurence Davies, (_Paths to Modern Music_, 1971), writing of morals that can be drawn from Rachmaninoff's life: "… the artist, even if he is not a natural revolutionary, cannot afford to merely stand still."

Joseph Machlis (Introduction to Contemporary Music, 1961): "Rachmaninov has no proper place in a book on contemporary music."

David Ewen (The World of Twentieth-Century Music, 1968): "Rachmaninoff did not bring to music that which it did not have before him … He was never the original thinker"

Gerald Abraham (On Russian Music, 1938) "But it would be stupid to pretend that Glazunov, Lyadov, Rachmaninov, and Arensky … are anything but pale shadows of their masters and predecessors."

John Culshaw: A man " … born thirty years too late."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"Rachmaninoff was more or less panned as a nonentity in most books on modern music and elsewhere in the mid-20thc:"

_All_ of those quotes reveal the 'skewedness' of their owners' thinking on the subject. They are conclusions (except for the Stravinsky 'witticism') drawn from a jaundiced view of the facts. Even Culshaw's 'born thirty years too late' makes an ill-founded assumption about 'lateness'.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It is a shame that a composer's worth is so heavily based on the contemporaneity of the forms they use. Turning music into an intellectual competition kind of sucks.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ukko said:


> "Rachmaninoff was more or less panned as a nonentity in most books on modern music and elsewhere in the mid-20thc:"
> 
> _All_ of those quotes reveal the 'skewedness' of their owners' thinking on the subject. They are conclusions (except for the Stravinsky 'witticism') drawn from a jaundiced view of the facts. Even Culshaw's 'born thirty years too late' makes an ill-founded assumption about 'lateness'.


Agreed! You might have misunderstood my intention in posting these quotations. I meant only to support Sid James claims about the prejudice directed at Rachmaninoff. I take this near unanimity of opinion as a sign of the times: An evolutionary view of history, in which the materials of music were seen to have a for-ordained trajectory, was broadly taken for granted and Rachmaninoff just didn't fit with the program.


----------

