Rachmaninov PC No.2, Survey

Interesting article online, with a quite beautiful layout, at Inkpot. The writer of the survey is Jonathan Yungkans
http://www.inkpot.com/classical/rachpfc2.html

- Andrys

Very interesting, thank you! However, I find it rather strange that Richter is omitted in the comments on the recordings of this work.

There is a mention that Rachmaninoff may have been musically rejuvenated not by Dr. Dahl but by his daughter! That's interesting. It would explain some of the feelings I got in the first movement.

Will read it later, (thanks Andrys), but I know Glazunov completely ruined the premiere of Rach's 1st symphony. Didn't have a clue apparently, but many say it was because he was drunk. Rach was completely distraught, but fwiw, I think this work a very meritable 1st symphony, despite it's detractors here. At least it has some very exciting moments.

Not terribly wild about the PC #2, and maintain that No.3 and No.4 are better, or at least not as hackneyed. My father played the PC No.2 nearly every day whilst I was a kid, including the Mendelssohn violin concerto. That might explain my lukewarm reaction to these works.

Regards,

# Classical Music WebSite Links : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/ tassiedevil2.htm

# Main Page, To Conductors, Jazz Songstresses : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html # Ormandy page and New Furtwängler link

Ray, Sydney

To my ears, #2 has always seemed the most tightly constructed of these works (consider, for example, how the G-Ab-F-G-C motto permeates the concerto). It is certainly the most performer-proof. Perhaps the very greatest interpretations of #3 (for me, this would be the likes of Cliburn and Gieseking) convey more than the very greatest of #2. But, if I had a choice between hearing a random pianist play #2 or #3, or if I was recommending a starting-place for someone new to Rachmaninov, I'd choose #2 every time.

#4 contains two great movements together with a hacked-together finale (at least, no interpretation has convinced me otherwise).

I'm not denying PC #2 is a wonderfully lush and romantic score (although not everyone likes Rachmaninov), but I got overexposed to it as a kid. I got overexposed to the 2nd symphony also, but somehow never lost interest in it, and play it once in a while for a good sentimental wallow.

Haven't you heard the Michelangeli, Philharmonia, Gracis recording of PC #4, coupled with the Ravel PC in G for left hand only? Truly electric, and is a legendary pair of piano concerto recordings. I would have thought this would have convinced most people, unless you haven't heard it yet? It is possible, I suppose, that is has a few detractors. For PC #3, this has somehow proved an elusive score for many, and I have never been completely satisfied with Ashkenazy's efforts. Haven't heard Argerich yet though, much to my shame.

Regards,

# Classical Music WebSite Links : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/ tassiedevil2.htm

# Main Page, To Conductors, Jazz Songstresses : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html # Ormandy page and New Furtwängler link

Ray, Sydney

It convinces me, but only for the first two movements.

Nope, the G major concerto (the one Michelangeli recorded) is the two-hand

I love Rachmaninoff. I had to laugh at myself on Monday. As I drove to work I changed radio stations to hear the last 3 minutes or so of someone's symphony. I remember thinking, 'this is pretty well written, but, it sounds like they're trying to imitate Rach.'

About a week earlier I was criticizing myself for not listening to more than the pc #2, #3, Sym 2, Isle of the Dead and the Sym dances. The thought I had was , 'I wonder what his 1st symphony sounds like? why haven't i listened to this yet, and his 3rd as well?'

As it turns out this mystery piece was the end of the 1st symphony, minus his signature bum bada dum ending.

i had to laff, but i'm already in love with the work, or, what i've heard of it. it is well written, from what little i've heard, and it has the mark of this great composer's immense intinct for form.

all we need are people who can play it right.

i've been listening to #3 off and on since horowitz went on tv with ormandy back in the 80's.

the piece is a monster. this is a tuff nut to crack, but when you finally break thru and discover how his mastery of form squeezes the life out of the listener, you discover that this work is indeed quite superior to the 2nd.

despite this, my love for the 2nd hasn't waned an iota. it is still and will always be a treasure.

i just listened to vasary by chance a week ago, and he nails the development solo with brute force, but i'm still 'learning' the piece and need to hear many more.