Rachmanninoff vs. Chopin

[Brithooven]

Originally posted by PDG:
It has to be Chopin for no other reason than their respective comments about Schubert's piano sonatas. Chopin, when asked why he hadn't written more sonatas, cited Beethoven's legacy and the "heavenly length" of Schubert's similar works. Rachmaninov on the other hand confessed as recently as 1928 to being "unaware that Schubert had written any piano sonatas".

That doesn't really say much for Rachmaninoff, does it?

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Brithooven:
That doesn't really say much for Rachmaninoff, does it?

But what was Schuber's popularity in 1928? And how well were his works catalogued at that time?

[Sorrano]

I've never really gotten into Chopin nor understood his immense popularity. And as for Rachmaninoff, I have more interest in his orchestral and vocal works than his piano works. That Chopin never ventured much beyond the piano has been a bit of a stumbling block for me, too.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
But what was Schuber's popularity in 1928? And how well were his works catalogued at that time?

It wasn't until 1950 that Otto Erich Deutsch published his Schubert - Thematic Catalogue, the result of a 50 year interest in the composer. It was the pianist Schnabel (influenced by his wife, the contralto Therese Behr) who brought the sonatas to public attention.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Raro]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
I've never really gotten into Chopin nor understood his immense popularity. And as for Rachmaninoff, I have more interest in his orchestral and vocal works than his piano works. That Chopin never ventured much beyond the piano has been a bit of a stumbling block for me, too.

Same here. I can only listen to so much of his nocturnes or mazurka's in a row... I am, trying to venture beyond trodden paths, quite fond of his early piano trio and of course late cello sonata, a work which is undoubtedly one of the greatest of its kind. The piano trio, although not all that originally scored, is a fine work with many good tunes - but that cello sonata is REALLY amazing. His treatment of the form is highly original, the themes are hauntingly beautiful and the balance between the 2 instruments is amazingly well-maintained troughtout the work; not the first thing you would expect from someone who is only used to composing for the piano!

With many composers it's a damn shame they died so young, but I tend to think that Chopin's death is extremely unfortunate, since it could be that he was perhaps on a turning point in his career... Would he have written more for chamber forces? The cello sonata was one of his longest and most important works: his last public concert (no small event for someone who thorougly disliked playing in public) was devoted to the 3 movements of this cello sonata with which he was satisfied. His personal notes also make clear that it was one of his most difficult conceptions.

Or am I perhaps seeing ghosts and should I just regard his sublime cello sonata as a one-off? We'll never know!

[Big D]

Simply haven't heard enough Rachmaninoff to give an opinion.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Raro:
Same here. I can only listen to so much of his nocturnes or mazurka's in a row... I am, trying to venture beyond trodden paths, quite fond of his early piano trio and of course late cello sonata, a work which is undoubtedly one of the greatest of its kind. The piano trio, although not all that originally scored, is a fine work with many good tunes - but that cello sonata is REALLY amazing. His treatment of the form is highly original, the themes are hauntingly beautiful and the balance between the 2 instruments is amazingly well-maintained troughtout the work; not the first thing you would expect from someone who is only used to composing for the piano!

With many composers it's a damn shame they died so young, but I tend to think that Chopin's death is extremely unfortunate, since it could be that he was perhaps on a turning point in his career... Would he have written more for chamber forces? The cello sonata was one of his longest and most important works: his last public concert (no small event for someone who thorougly disliked playing in public) was devoted to the 3 movements of this cello sonata with which he was satisfied. His personal notes also make clear that it was one of his most difficult conceptions.

Or am I perhaps seeing ghosts and should I just regard his sublime cello sonata as a one-off? We'll never know!

For those of us interested in the arts, the large number of composers, poets, painters, etc. who died young is one indication of the ominpresence of the shroud of death to those born in earlier times. With all the drawbacks of modern life which we always hear about and complain of ourselves, it is still true that it's an inestimable blessing to no longer have to be afraid of many of the myriads of diseases with no effective treatments that stalked the world before the 20th century and rendered life so grim. Especially the lives of parents who had to have 15 children to see a few reach adulthood. And were beset by sorrow so often over and over again.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:

For those of us interested in the arts, the large number of composers, poets, painters, etc. who died young is one indication of the ominpresence of the shroud of death to those born in earlier times. With all the drawbacks of modern life which we always hear about and complain of ourselves, it is still true that it's an inestimable blessing to no longer have to be afraid of many of the myriads of diseases with no effective treatments that stalked the world before the 20th century and rendered life so grim. Especially the lives of parents who had to have 15 children to see a few reach adulthood. And were beset by sorrow so often over and over again.

I wish I shared your faith in modern science, but just considering the 20th century alone when one of the worst flu epidemics in 1918/19 killed more people than the 14th century black death. Confronted daily with terroism, war, global warming, threats of pandemics and evidence of the increasing ineffectiveness of antibiotics perhaps things aren't quite as cosy as we'd like to believe.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Ellery]

MMMMM... Please. I cant choose between Chopin or Rachmaninoff because their music is very diferent. Its absolutely stupid to think that without Chopin Rachmaninoff never exist because chopin has his unique style of composition, and his unique technic for the piano. Its true, he evolves the piano technic, but his tecnic has nothing to do with rachmaninoff's totatlly diferente technic. Chopin was not the only romantic pianist... Not even the best pianist. He meet Lizt, Brahms, Clara Schumann, and many many good pianist, and composers very diferent but romantic at the end. The music evolves without and with his help. Rachmaninoff had his advantage over chopin. he was way much better orchestrator than chopin, was a master in harmony and counter point. I will choose Rach because he touch me, but not because his better than chopin, because he is not... hi is just diferent.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Ellery:
MMMMM... Please. I cant choose between Chopin or Rachmaninoff because their music is very diferent. Its absolutely stupid to think that without Chopin Rachmaninoff never exist because chopin has his unique style of composition, and his unique technic for the piano. Its true, he evolves the piano technic, but his tecnic has nothing to do with rachmaninoff's totatlly diferente technic. Chopin was not the only romantic pianist... Not even the best pianist. He meet Lizt, Brahms, Clara Schumann, and many many good pianist, and composers very diferent but romantic at the end. The music evolves without and with his help. Rachmaninoff had his advantage over chopin. he was way much better orchestrator than chopin, was a master in harmony and counter point. I will choose Rach because he touch me, but not because his better than chopin, because he is not... hi is just diferent.

Is there a possibility that John Field's music had more pull on Rachmaninoff than Chopin, as Field spent his time in Russia?

[Droell]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Is there a possibility that John Field's music had more pull on Rachmaninoff than Chopin, as Field spent his time in Russia?

It seems to me there were a host of composers working in London in the first 30 years of the 19th century that had a major, as yet unknown, impact on the early romantic era.

In Berlioz's memoirs, there is a hint of the same thing, at pretty much the same time, in Paris.

We've been so eager to soak up all the works by a handful of greats that we have unwittingly lost the context in which they worked.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Is there a possibility that John Field's music had more pull on Rachmaninoff than Chopin, as Field spent his time in Russia?

I would have thought that Rachmaninov's music was more influenced by Chopin than Field, whose music I doubt was still in vogue in late 1880's Russia.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Peter:
I would have thought that Rachmaninov's music was more influenced by Chopin than Field, whose music I doubt was still in vogue in late 1880's Russia.

Just a curiosity....it's often hard to really piece the puzzle together, especially when we don't have all the parts. What is known about the influences on Rachmaninoff's piano music?

[MontrealPianist]

Originally posted by Peter:
I regard Chopin as a superior composer to Rachmaninov - for one thing there wouldn't have been a Rachmaninov without a Chopin! Chopin's revolutionary approach to the piano combined with his exquisite poetic sense in my mind produced the greatest piano music of the romantic era.

I cannot with this. Chopin was not a revolutinary composer, his "poetic" sense came from Italian Bel Canto. Listen to end of the 18th/start of the 19th century operas and you will know what I mean. His style was also a very classical approach but his love for the Bel Canto(There are a lot of parallels to make between Chopin and Mozart) made him very popular amongst more sensitive listeners. Personally, I think Rachmaninoffs stronger works such as the third concerto makes him a brilliant composer, I dont highly regard Chopin nor Mendelsohnn. He was also a superior pianist, undoubtebly better then anyone from the 19th century. He was one of the pioneers of the Russian school, which produced the best interpreters of all time.

[Peter]

Originally posted by MontrealPianist:
I cannot with this. Chopin was not a revolutinary composer, his "poetic" sense came from Italian Bel Canto. Listen to end of the 18th/start of the 19th century operas and you will know what I mean. His style was also a very classical approach but his love for the Bel Canto(There are a lot of parallels to make between Chopin and Mozart) made him very popular amongst more sensitive listeners. Personally, I think Rachmaninoffs stronger works such as the third concerto makes him a brilliant composer, I dont highly regard Chopin nor Mendelsohnn. He was also a superior pianist, undoubtebly better then anyone from the 19th century. He was one of the pioneers of the Russian school, which produced the best interpreters of all time.

Hearing this from a pianist I'm surprised! Chopin was the first modern pianist - new approaches to fingering, technique and pedalling that inluenced Liszt, Debussy and Ravel. The etudes and preludes are an incredible achievement that greatly influenced Rachmaninov. Listen to the last movement of the Bb minor sonata and tell me he wasn't revolutionary!

------------------
'Man know thyself'