Rachmaninov Prelude in B minor Op.32 No.10

In effect, Horowitz might be a fool... seeing as he recorded a lot of Rachmaninoff stuff

I apologize for the peremptory tone.

This is the only line that Massimo Mila, in his "Breve storia della Musica" (Brief History of Music), dedicates to Rachmaninov:

...,on the mechanical piano virtuosity of Rachmaninoff (1873-1943).

Rach3 wrote:

In effect, Horowitz might be a fool... seeing as he recorded a lot of Rachmaninoff's stuff

Horowitz was not a fool; it is well known that he studied and played only works pleasing to the general public...

mike wrote:

Horowitz was no fool, it is well known that he studied and played only works pleasing to the general public...

... like the music of many other composers which are works pleasing to the general public. I don't know, look at Beethoven's fifth or ninth ...etc. etc.

mike wrote:

This is the only line that Massimo Mila, in his "Breve storia della Musica" (Brief History of Music), dedicates to Rachmaninov:

...,on the mechanical piano virtuosity of Rachmaninoff (1873-1943).

Ah, ok. If Mila says so....

So it's not your assessment ... it's Mila's. What is your idea?

You see, as long as it's a matter of taste... anyone can say anything, but when you put it on an objective level, one must provide at least some arguments... even if your name is Mila.

Who knows what he might have written about Liszt....

I forgot, the other accomplices of a great audience are: Kissin, Yuja Wang, Gilels, Valentina Lisitsa ... I've listed a few different ones, but many measure themselves against this great composer.

I feel sorry for Mila, even the rich cry too.

mike wrote:

This is the only line that Massimo Mila, in his "Breve storia della Musica" (Brief History of Music), dedicates to Rachmaninov:

...,on the cumbersome piano virtuosity of Rachmaninoff (1873-1943).

It is no secret, in my opinion, that musicologists are the most useless thing on earth... after all, music is made by musicians. The fact that the two words (musician and musicologist) start the same way does not automatically mean they do the same job. In fact, what do musicologists do? Besides chatting about the work of others? ...who knows...

In this regard, I can only pass along this interesting writing proposed by Frank regarding criticism

Frank wrote:

Speaking of the critic...

The critic cannot be right in the common sense of the word. It is only on things that do not matter that one can give a truly impartial opinion, and this is undoubtedly the reason why an impartial opinion is always absolutely devoid of value. The man who sees both sides of a question is the man who sees absolutely nothing. Art is a passion, and in matters of art, thought is inevitably colored by emotion, and is therefore fluid rather than fixed, and since it depends on fine moods and exquisite moments, it cannot be confined within the rigidity of a scientific formula or a theological dogma. It is to the soul that art speaks, and the soul can be made prisoner of the mind just as much as of the body. Naturally, one should not have prejudices; but as a great Frenchman observed a hundred years ago, having prejudices in such matters is a personal fact, and when one has preferences, one ceases to be right. Only the auctioneer can admire all artistic schools equally and impartially. No: being right is not among the qualities of the true critic. It is not even a condition of criticism. Every form of art we come into contact with dominates us for the moment to the exclusion of any other form. We must surrender ourselves completely to the work in question, whatever it may be, if we wish to conquer its secret. [Oscar Wilde - The Critic as Artist, with some observations on the importance of doing nothing]

Here is the whole thread:

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2379-come-possiamo-parlare-di-musica/

...honestly, I trust my ears and my studies in the matter of composition... precisely one of those who allows music to continue to exist and that truly nourishes it.

In fact, Rachmaninoff doesn't always blow me away, but I recognize it's a matter of taste... there is a lot of other music that I don't like and of more revered composers...

mike wrote:

This is the only line that Massimo Mila, in his "Breve storia della Musica" (Brief History of Music), dedicates to Rachmaninov:

...,on the mechanical piano virtuosity of Rachmaninoff (1873-1943).

I might also find this statement interesting, but I would like to know what he writes before... is it possible, Mike, for you to provide the entire complete passage? I do not possess that text and I don't have time to go to the library in the coming days.

In the meantime, a possible historical overview of piano concertos and orchestra; clearly many are missing, but I feel I should mention Rach2 at some point...

J. S. Bach: Concertos in D minor BWV 1052 and in F minor BWV 1056

F. J. Haydn: Concerto in D major Hob:VIII:11

W. A. Mozart: Concertos K271, K466, K467, K488, K491

L. van Beethoven: Concertos no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

F. Chopin: nos. 1 and 2

E. Grieg: Concerto in A minor

D. Kabalevsky: Concerto no. 3

S. Rachmaninov: Concerto no. 2

Schumann, no?

Frank wrote:

I might even find this statement interesting, but I would like to know what he writes before... is it possible, Mike, for you to provide the entire complete passage? I do not possess that text and I don't have time to go to the library in the coming days.

In the meantime, a possible historical survey of piano and orchestra concertos; clearly many are missing, but I feel I should mention Rach2 at some point...

J. S. Bach: Concertos in D minor BWV 1052 and in F minor BWV 1056

W. A. Mozart: Concertos K271, K466, K467, K488, K491

F. J. Haydn: Concerto in D major Hob:VIII:11

L. van Beethoven: Concertos no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

F. Chopin: nos. 1 and 2

E. Grieg: Concerto in A minor

D. Kabalevsky: Concerto no. 3

S. Rachmaninov: Concerto no. 2

This is the context where Massimo Mila, in his "Breve storia della Musica" (A Brief History of Music), speaks of Rachmaninoff:

Chapter XX - The national schools.

The Russians

.............

By far the greatest of the Westernized ones was Tchaikovsky (1840-93), a sort of Turgenev of music, a fine builder of symphonic architectures, a brilliant and graceful orchestrator, a pathetic and eloquent melodist, who aspires to Beethovenian heroism but tempers it with a feverish and perpetually moved sensibility of an oppressed and agitated soul, vibrating between the poles of passionate exultation and melancholy languor.

Together with Dvorak, he forms the pair of principal epigones of nineteenth-century symphonism, and rises far above the academic and professorial eclecticism of Glazunov (1836-1936), the picturesque salon mannerism of Arensky (1861-1906), the sentimental and romantic style of Grechaninov (1864-1956), and the mechanical piano virtuosity of Rachmaninoff (1873-1943).

...........

Ettore wrote:

Ah, ok. If Mila says so....

So it's not your assessment ... it's Mila's. What is your idea?

You see, as long as it's a matter of taste... anyone can say anything, but when it comes to objectivity, one must provide at least some arguments... even if your name is Mila.

Who knows what she will have written about Liszt....

Given that my ideas are necessarily the result of the books I have read, the music I listen to and play, and the social context in which I live, I nevertheless try to express what I objectively think about Rachmaninoff's music:

I sense a certain artificiality, I don't find it spontaneous, and above all, I cannot stand those depressed melodies, that continuous self-pity; certainly, music must also express pain, but the songs of sorrow by Bach, Beethoven, and Chopin are of a completely different nature...

Regarding Liszt, she writes well about him, but more as an "Apostle of Romanticism" than as a composer; I transcribe in a small note: ....for him, one can repeat Baldini's phrase regarding Victor Hugo: "Every Saturday he played a four-franc bet on the wheels, together with the Sublime and the Banal.".

and I think Tchaikovsky and Liszt are of great importance in the field of piano and orch. concertos. Anyway, I would put Rachmaninov's third, or am I wrong? Which do you prefer or think is far more important than Rach's concertos?

*concerts

mike wrote:

This is the context where Massimo Mila, in his "Breve storia della Musica" (A Brief History of Music), speaks about Rachmaninoff:

Chapter XX - The national schools.

The Russians

.............

By far the most Westernized was Tchaikovsky (1840-93), a sort of Turgenev of music, a fine builder of symphonic architectures, a brilliant and graceful orchestrator, a pathetic and eloquent melodist, who aspires to Beethovenian heroism but tempers it with a feverish and perpetually moved sensibility of an oppressed and agitated soul, vibrating between the poles of passionate exultation and melancholic languor.

Together with Dvorak, he forms the pair of principal epigones of nineteenth-century symphonism, and rises far above the academic and professorial eclecticism of Glazunov (1836-1936), the picturesque salon mannerism of Arensky (1861-1906), the sentimental and romantic style of Grechaninov (1864-1956), and the mechanical piano virtuosity of Rachmaninoff (1873-1943).

...........

Thanks Mike, I had missed your post... the fact that Mila speaks only of the piano goes hand in hand with what I was writing here:

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2244-rachmaninov-140

antares86 wrote:

Schumann, no?

But yes, all those we want... it was just to say that "in the end" he cannot be counted among them either... right?