Re: Rachmaninoff?

[Greg Romero <gregory.romero@yale.edu>]

On Mon, 5 May 1997, Keith Weston wrote:

> > 
> >      A Glenn Gould list talking about Rachmaninoff?  I've got to get my
> > two-cents in worth fast, I guess.
> >      I can't stand Rachmaninoff and I never could.  IMHO, Rachmaninoff is
> > a crowd-pleaser who was born about 50 years too late. 
> 
> Isn't it unfortunate that the term "crowd-pleaser" is a pejorative 
> phrase?  What is wrong with pleasing a wide public?  If there's one 
> force "killing" classical music in the 20th century it's music 
> created in academic arrogance divorced of the need to be heard 
> widely. Consider: composers ought to be crowd-pleasers, or concerned 
> with reaching a crowd.  If a piece is on paper and is never played, 
> does it make a sound?  I have no problem with composers aiming to 
> please, even if it means writing an occasional saccharine melody.
> 
   Dear F_minor,
                 Needless to say, I am a little shocked and disappointed
at some of the responses to MY OPINION of Rachmaninoff, especially the one
that says I will NEVER listen to Rachmaninoff's Vespers because, as fate
would have it, there was a performance of the Vespers here at Yale by the
Yale Russian Chorus that I attended in February.  I liked the work, but it
didn't really show anything new to me.  Maybe another listening is in
store. 
      Also, the notion that I am a musical conservative for not liking
Rachmaninoff is slightly absurd as I know very few musically "progressive"
people who enjoy Rachmaninoff.  I also often take the opportunity to hear
the "New Music" series that is run here in New Haven, and I have about
twenty CDs worth of post-Schoenberg in my collection.  I am anything but a
musical conservative.  As far as listening to Rachmaninoff over and over
again is concerned, I have and I am still not moved.  As I said before,
for early 20th century music, Rachmaninoff does not rank high when there
are works of Schoenberg, Scriabin, Berg, Debussy, and Ravel to be
explored.  As a pianist, I have also played through some of the piano
pieces (those that I could get my fingers around) and even parts of the
2nd concerto.  Much like Gould's opinion of the Hammerklavier, I find them
terribly ungrateful for the amount of work that needs to be put into
them.  
     Since I appear to have offended some of the people on here with my
rather brusque dimissal of Rachmaninoff (incidentally, I think I did a
better job than most people on this list in explaining my opinion of the
music.  Just as an example, I don't think saying that Rachmaninoff is a
storyteller conveys any more about his music than does saying he is a
crowd pleaser.), I will try to elaborate on it, and express my surprise
at the fact that more people on this list don't share my opinion,
considering that this is a Glenn Gould list.  
     I think that crowd-pleaser should be a pejorative when any kind of
ingenuity or daring in a composer's work is subsumed to making it
palatable to a crowd.  I see this often in Rachmaninoff's music.  My
favorite quote of Rachmaninoff's is that his 18th variation was "for my
manager". 
      The real force that is killing 20th century music is an
unwillingness of people to give this music a chance, hence, of all the
major composers of the early 20th century, the least original of them is
still the most popular, surpassing even Ravel and Debussy!  There has got
to be something wrong with that. 
     I don't think a desire for people to open their minds is "academic
arrogance".  And speaking of academic arrogance, I can't think of a better
example of that then Glenn Gould.  Here is a guy who wrote six or seven
complete works his whole life telling us that Mozart and all the Romantics
(with the exception of Mendelssohns choral and organ works) and
middle-period Beethoven were rubbish.  This is chalked up to his
eccentricity, but I post a message ridiculing Rachmaninoff and I am
swamped with condescending messages?  What about Gould's statements to
effect that the 28th and 29th variations of the Goldberg's are real
balcony-pleasers?  If anyone represents that kind of academic arrogance,
it's Glenn Gould.  Programming Krenek, Berg, Scoenberg, Hetu, Valen, etc? 
It seems that one of Gould's favorite things to do was dump all over the
classics of western music, and yet not one person criticizes him for it in
this group.   
     I think it would be safe to say, keeping Gould's musical aesthetics
in mind, that GG would have disliked Rachmaninoff as well.  First of all,
I'm sure Gould would have had criticisms of Rachmaninoff's instrumental
outlook similar to those he made of the Romantics, i.e. the necessity of
blurring linear qualities of the music with the pedal (listen to Gould's
Chopin Sonata in b, then listen to Cliburn's or some other Romantic
pianist's)  Also, the seperate voices that people often point out as
evidence of the complexity and ingenuity of Rachmaninoff's music are so
often merely accompaniment figures with no musical end in themselves that
I can't imagine Gould would be attracted by that aspect of his music. 
Contrast the counterpoint in Rachmaninoff's Bb-minor piano sonata with
that of Scriabin's 3rd (not to mention the harmonic adventurous) and I
think most would agree with.  I also doubt Gould would have been attracted
to Rachmaninoff's orchestral music just by dint of the fact that he really
payed little attention to the Russian symphonic repertoire, much
preferring the German tradition.  (yes, I am aware that Gould liked
Tchaikovsky's last three symphonies).  
     For fans of a man who was such an emphatic and sweeping critic of so
much music, I am disheartened by the attitude of those who wrote back to
me.  If I am close-minded to Rachmaninoff as you say I am, then you are
close-minded to someone who has a different opinion than you do.  I am
also irritated by the fact that my criticism is dismissed as somehow being
an academic and pedantic cliche.  I am aware that Rachmaninoff does not
enjoy a good reputation in "serious" muscial circles, but neither does
Tchaikovsky, who I am very fond of.  To imply that I am merely picking up
an old line and have not thought about it myself is wrong and patronizing.  
     Finally, if anyone feels the need to answer this message in a way
unsuitable for the f_minor forum, just delete the cc: and send it only to
me.  Thanks.

                       Greg Romero