GG: Not a Rach Fan

["John P. Hill" <jphill@frank.mtsu.edu>]

For what it's worth Greg, I can tell you that I have absolutely
*no* interest in Rachmaninoff whatsoever.

And I think you're right on the money with regard to his lack of
substantive importance in the development of 20th century music.
Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Debussy are the ones who moved things forward.

With regard to both piano pieces and composition in general, GG's opinions
on these issues are pretty much common knowledge, if you've done *any*
reading or research.

It seems to me that the enigma with GG involved resolving his obvious
preference for "pure", non-programatic material (Schoenberg, et. al.) with
his not-uncommon enthusiasm for items like Strauss' *Enoch Arden*
(recorded in 1961?) which is both highly programatic and very Romantic.

I'm all for moving beyond Rach.

Did somebody actually diss on Bach on this list????

The *horror*.


jh



On Mon, 5 May 1997, Greg Romero wrote:

> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Kris Shapar wrote:
> 
> > I don't know if the discussion has been closed, but for what it's 
> > worth, I have also found Rach uninspired and not worth the attention 
> > he keeps on getting. I hate hearing dollar signs instead of music! I 
> > think your points were well taken and was also surprised at the tone 
> > with which they were received on the list.
> >                                  
>      Finally someone who agrees with me.  If people want to talk about
> Rachmaninoff, how about discussing how he would or would not fit in with
> GG's musical philosophy or how GG reacted to other Russian composers
> writing around the same time, as Kristin did  with reference to
> Prokofiev.
> 
> 
> 
>