Re: Rachmaninoff?

[james langager <jlangage@d.umn.edu>]

On Mon, 5 May 1997, Greg Romero wrote:

> 
>      A Glenn Gould list talking about Rachmaninoff?  I've got to get my
> two-cents in worth fast, I guess.

Rachmaninoff is god. :)

>      I can't stand Rachmaninoff and I never could.  

blasphimer!!

IMHO, Rachmaninoff is
> a crowd-pleaser who was born about 50 years too late.  His music is overly
> long, the melodies (with the rare exception of maybe the 2nd Concerto's
> slow movement. I refuse to say the same about the 18th variation, though,
> because R himself told us enough about that one.) are rambling, pointless,
> and saccharine, and he added nothing to the repertoire but a couple of
> salon-music piano w/ orchestra pieces, a bunch of all-technique-no-music
> piano solo pieces, and a couple of long, boring symphonies.  He reminds me
> of Liszt, who I also can't stand, except that he wasn't a fraction as
> daring as Liszt was.  Where Liszt pushed the harmonic idiom ahead twenty
> years, Rachmaninoff pulled it back fifty. Look at the work that Scriabin
> and Schonberg were doing at the same time as Rachmaninoff for a
> comparison.  I think Grove's had the right idea when they told the truth
> about Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff should have stuck to playing the piano.
>      You can get mad at me if you like, but GG said worse stuff about
> Mozart, Chopin, and Schumann.  
> 
> 
> 
 dear conservative music person: 
	
	Never take Rachmaninoff at face value. His works need more than
one listening, DEAD serious. Rach is pure passion. (the pop. opinion
goes). and pure intellect. He weaves in melodies. If you listen, you will
hear it. I could go on and on, but that would be excessively impossible
and redundant... so: if you are human, give him another shot. if you are
android or something, I can see how he can't work for you....


					-Jon