December 3, 2004
Rachmaninov
I have decided that of all the overblown and bombastic Romantic music out there, Rachmaninov has to be at the very bottom of the pit. What really threw me over the line on him was listening to some piece he did on a piece by Paganini (or a theme of Paganini's, either way, it was an awful experience that did not compel me to go look up the piece).
Rachmaninov is the perfect embodiment of all that is wrong with classical music today. His music is written for the mechanic: the pimply, black-clad long-hair who is overly smitten with his own pianistic prowess. Like early Franz Liszt, there is something there, but the effort to get to it is not worth it (the late Franz Liszt, on the other hand, is something else). When I hear Rachmaninov, all signs point to the empty bombast of the Van Cliburn generation. Technically perfect recordings that simply do not breathe, and if they did, would be breathing nothing but hot air anyway.
Speaking of crap that does not seem to need to exist: the Real Gilligan's Island?!? A reality show based on a sitcom that completely exhausted its own creative potential? Anyway, I will not allow this blog to devolve into television commentary, lest I start frothing at the mouth about how bad (and I mean that in a moral as well as dramatic sense) Friends was.
Anyway, with recordings of Rachmaninov being touted as important music, is it any wonder that classical music is in a slump? When Rostropovich's silly renditions of the Bach Cello Suites are played over and over on classical radio?
Sorry, but Bolero is more worthy than this stuff. At least Ravel created a fine essay on orchestration (of course you only need to listen to it a couple of times to get everything out of it that you can) with it.
On a happier note, I pulled out a Gustav Leonhardt recording of French baroque music and found just what the doctor ordered. I have a soft spot for the French baroque, since they got it so right (Couperin Uber Alles!), and Leonhardt understands this repertoire (he's not so shabby with Bach, either).
Tonight, after I post this, I will be delving back into the world of Christmas music (reading scores, not listening to recordings), which has been interesting. I normally limit my Christmas music exposure by avoiding it almost entirely during Advent, but my lecture on Tuesday leaves me no choice but to wade chest deep in the stuff.
So, with that, let me recommend the Anonymous 4's On Yoolis Night (Harmonia Mundi). Their sound is almost too much to take at times, but it is powerful stuff. To balance out your ears, you might need a dose of Russian men's choir music, just to restore the bass recognition center in your brain, but other than that, the Anonymous 4 really have something good going on.
Posted by erik at December 3, 2004 11:59 PM | TrackBackBernard,
Of course, you are correct on the Vespers. Great stuff. I do listen to those fairly often.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at December 13, 2004 1:14 AMOne can dislike the overuse of Rach's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd by recent conductors, and nonetheless believe that there is some merit in the music itself. However, there is much more that can be found in his Isle of the Dead, or Bells, or his songs.
And, as regards choral music, anyone who would pooh-pooh his All Night Vigil (aka, Vespers), merely would display his own absence of discernment or taste.
Posted by: Bernard Brandt at December 10, 2004 4:30 PMI never was a big Rachmaninov fan but then I got this CD from Berkshire Record Outlet for just $2, of Rach playing his own 2nd Piano Concerto and the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini. I love that CD. I also love his music for unaccompanied choir, especially the Vespers. Haven't heard much of anything else by Rachmaninov.