Rachmaninoff Plays Chopin

Ego obfuscates: Rachmaninoff plays Chopin

Rachmaninoff was a great virtuoso and a very popular composer. His works are really not ground-breaking as much as they are excellent augmentations of the great romantic compositions of Chopin, Liszt and Schumann. As a pianist his technical prowess is breath-taking. That being said, I must say that this CD of Rachmaninoff performing Chopin is disappointing. There is certainly enough depth and diversity in Chopin's works to allow significant latitude in interpretation, tempi, dynamics and pedaling. But, in this case, Rachmaninoff, like many other pianists before and after him, lets his ego obfuscate the intent of the composer. Certainly this is not true of every piece on this CD. But, unfortunately many do suffer.
The opening work on the CD is the famous performance of the Sonata Op 35. Firstly, he omits the repetition of the exposition. This may not be his choosing. In Rachmaninoff's day time was short for vinyl recordings. That aside, the introduction is played superbly. The urgent Main Theme and well contrasted Subordinate Theme are also done well. The close is erratic in both tempo and dynamics. In the development, the third bar is marked sotto voce, but played forte. Also the retardation and diminuendo to pianissimo in bars 49 and 50 of the development is inexplicable.
In the second movement Rachmaninoff displays great virtuosity. The tempo is invigorating. However, he is a bit sloppy on the leaps. The romantic middle section, where his left hand trills are magnificent, is played too heavily.
Where the entire reading comes unglued is in the funeral march. Here Rachmaninoff plays without solemnity and ignores the composer's dynamic indications. The middle section, however, is beautifully played. Once again his trills are exquisite. But, the reprise of the march is a clanging, banging, fortissimo monstrosity that would have sent Chopin into a rage. When his students performed his works in a loud, raspy and unrefined manner, Chopin would ask: "What is that? Is that a dog barking?" He would have thought all the hounds of Paris were let loose in this performance. Every work of Chopin's requires one attribute from the performer: elegance. It is most certainly absent from this one.
In the finale we encounter weird, haphazard accents and a running together or blurring of the triplets that is disconcerting. I don't hear the night winds that Anton Rubinstein imagined. The fact is I don't know what I'm hearing. Also, the modification of the last three bars is inappropriate and not at all effective.
Overall, I cannot say that this is a good reading. It has some wonderful moments, but overall it's not commendable.
The Nocturne Op 9 n 2 is done beautifully. Once again the trills are spectacular. This is a great performance.
The sublime Waltz in C-Sharp minor Op 64 n 2 is for the most part fascinating. Rachmaninoff executes the most compelling exposition I have ever heard. The piu mosso might be a bit too quick, but is still tastefully done. The second Subordinate Theme in D-Flat does not come off as well and it is misplayed.
The Waltz Op 64 n 3 is played too quickly and much too insistently in the middle section.
The Ballade Op 47 is taken too quickly and sloppily in the opening section. Yet, Rachmaninoff is much too sedate and lethargic in the second section. This subordinate theme requires a lively, jaunty lilt. The reprise and coda are much too erratic and sloppy. Rachmaninoff's performance lacks poetry. In the coda it lacks ferocity. Without those elements, plus some unrefined moments, the Ballade comes off poorly.
The Mazurka op 68 n 2, published posthumously, is very well done. The trills are excellent. The middle section might be a tad flat, but that's quibbling.
The E minor waltz is an ego trip taken much too fast. It contains amateurish accents and an erratic rubato in the middle section. This is a dreadful performance.
The Mazurka Op 63 n 3, one of Chopin's little gems, receives a very dull account.
The Nocturne Op 15 n 2, one of the composer's finest, is well done except for the need for more power in the agitated middle section.
The Grande Valse Brilliante Op 18 is played much too tepidly--even in the reprise. Notes are added, some are omitted. There are uncalled for accents. If Rachmaninoff is trying to improve upon Chopin, that's a losing battle.
The Waltz Op 34 n 3 is very well done with a nice balance between humor and the touch of pathos.
The two recordings of the Minute Waltz Op 64 n 1 display the pianist's mercurial technique. However, the middle section is marred by ridiculously elongated grace notes.
Rachmaninoff's playing of the posthumous B Minor Waltz is OK, but uninspiring.
The G-Flat Waltz is not well done by any measure. The opening is sloppy and the beautiful middle section is played in a flat and almost callous manner.
In the great Scherzo Op 39 Rachmaninoff over emphasizes the eighth rest in bar 31 and every other time it is encountered in the piece. The first appearance of the middle section is taken much too drearily. Once he picks up the pace, it is better. The coda, the crux of this work, is too sloppy. It lacks the demonic power dictated by the composer.
The Waltz Op 42, one of Chopin's best, is famous for its flighty refrain. Rachmaninoff plays it in the manner that Wilhelm von Lenz ascribed to Chopin's: a continuous stretto. Rachmaninoff is wonderful in the refrain. However, in the critical climax of the piece he is sloppy, doesn't follow the score and fails to attain the intention of the composer.
Overall, there are some great, some good and some poor renderings by Rachmaninoff. For the most part, I'm not a fan. But, in some instances like the Nocturne Op 9 n 2 or the Waltzes Op 64 n 2 and 34 n 2, I wouldn't want to be without his recordings. It's just disconcerting and disappointing when one composer doesn't respect the intentions of another. This is especially discouraging since Rachmaninoff, like so many other 20th century pianists and composers, owed such a debt to Chopin.
One important note: If you want a great rendition of the Funeral March Sonata, buy Mitsuko Uchida's or Martha Argerich's. They both give magnificent performances. Racmaninoff's recording is not in their league.

November 16, 2008

Rachmaninoff plays Chopin

The Maestro at his best. He perfected his piano playing after leaving Russia and Moscow forever in 1917. February 29, 2008

AMAZING

Rachmaninoff's performance of the Chopin B flat sonata is Monumental, and the greatest performance that exists.

Lawrence January 7, 2006

An interesting release

I suspect part of the fascination in Rachmaninov's playing is due to his being part of that increasingly rare and illustrious breed: the pianist-composer. The Funeral March sonata on this disc is perhaps the most famous of all. Noble as it is, I wouldn't proclaim it the account to end all others. The trademarks of this musician's pianism are apparent: clarity, poise, faultless execution. As another reviewer noted, the artist takes liberties with some scores but always in a tasteful manner. The nocturnes and waltzes are not without a certain charm, but Rachmaninov was never one to wear his heart on his sleeve. July 29, 2005

Deep and Penetrating

This transfer of Rachmaninoff, while far from perfect, is much more than acceptable. It is much better than what we have from Piano Library which contains 99% of the same thing. Rachmaninoff's understanding of music is deep and penetrating: being a composer himself, he understood the structure of the pieces so well.

Here each piece has it's own life and identity each with a focal point. It is water tight compact and yet very much natural and alive. But it is not natural in Arrau's way, still less as oppressive as Horowitz or Richter. It is somewhere in between, closer to Argerich but with more consistency and depth. And like Casals' playing, it keeps our attention from the first note up to its focal point until its very end. But unlike Casals, he touches our hearts. It is very emotional but never to the point of being sentimental. His Chopin may not be as neurotic as Cortot. Nonetheless, he sheds light on the dark and nervous side of Chopin so well: a very throbbing interpretation that is so unique.

Sure, he did have fingers of steel that helped him to bring out whatever colour or atmostphere as appropriate. And despite that fact that there are some minor alterations on the scores like his Chopin, he is one of the few pianists who could really show you every note on the score counts and, above all, how it counts...

So, come and listen to the pianist with "arms of steel and heart of Gold" in action. It's hard to imagine how a listener fails to be touched by his playing. February 16, 2003

More reviews at Amazon.com ...