CD 1 [65:39]
Sergei RACHMANINOV
(1873-1943)
Piano Concerto no.2 in C minor, op.18
[31:25], Piano Concerto no.3 in D minor,
op.30 [33:57]
Philadelphia Orchestra/Leopold Stokowski
(no.2), Eugene Ormandy (no.3)
CD 2 [71:52]
RACHMANINOV
Piano Concerto no.1 in F sharp minor,
op.1 [24:39], Piano Concerto no.4 in
G minor, op.40 [24:33], Rhapsody on
a theme of Paganini, op.43 [22:08]
Philadelphia Orchestra/Eugene Ormandy
(Concertos 1 and 4), Leopold Stokowski
(Rhapsody)
CD 3 [58:54]
RACHMANINOV
The Isle of the Dead, op.29 [18:05],
Vocalise, op.34/14 [03:49], Symphony
no.3, op.44 [36:41]
Philadelphia Orchestra/Sergei Rachmaninov
CD 4 [58:14]
Ludwig van BEETHOVEN
(1770-1827)
Violin Sonata in G, op.30/3 [15:14]
Franz SCHUBERT
(1797-1828)
Violin Sonata in A, D.574 [19:33]
Edvard GRIEG (1843-1907)
Violin Sonata in C minor, op.45 [22:59]
Fritz Kreisler (violin)
CD 5 [66:00]
Johann Sebastian
BACH (1685-1750)
Partita no.4, BWV 828: Sarabande
[04:18]
George Frideric
HANDEL (1685-1759)
Suite no.5 in E: Air and Variations
[04:14]
Wolfgang Amadeus
MOZART (1756-1791)
Sonata in A, K.331: Rondo alla turca
[02:12]
BEETHOVEN
Variations in C minor, WoO 80 [07:52]
Frédéric
CHOPIN (1810-1849) trans.
Franz LISZT
(1811-1886)
Heimkehr [01:24], Mädchens Wunsch
[02:39]
SCHUBERT trans.
LISZT
Die schöne Müllerin: Das
Wandern [01:38], Schwanengesang:
Ständchen [04:22]
LISZT
Polonaise no.2 in E [07:36]
Felix MENDELSSOHN
(1809-1847)
Lied ohne Worte in C, op.67/4 [01:40]
SCHUBERT
Impromptu in A flat, D.899/4 [04:28]
LISZT
Concert Etude no.2 – "Gnomenreigen"
[03:03]
Christoph Willibald
GLUCK (1714-1798) trans.
Giovanni SGAMBATI
(1841-1914)
Orfeo ed Euridice: Mélodie
[03:26]
MENDELSSOHN
Etude in F, op.104b/2 [02:49], Etude
in A minor, op.104b/3 [01:45]
Robert SCHUMANN
(1810-1856) trans. Karl
TAUSIG (1841-1871)
Spanisches Liederspiel: Der Kontrabandiste
[01:48]
Ignacy Jan PADEREWSKI
(1860-1941)
Minuet in G, op.14/1 [03:49]
Fritz KREISLER
(1875-1962) trans. RACHMANINOV
Liebesfreud [04:59]
CD 6 [65:03]
CHOPIN
Sonata no.2 in B flat minor, op.35 –
"Funeral March" [18:43]
SCHUMANN
Carnaval, op. 9 [22:01]
CHOPIN
Nocturne in E flat, op.9/2 [04:42],
Waltz in C sharp minor, op.64/2 [03:34],
Waltz in A flat, op.64/3 [02:45], Ballade
no.3 in A flat, op.47 [07:18], Mazurka
in A minor, op.68/2 [02:43], Waltz in
E minor, op. posth [01:44]
CD 7 [62:30]
J.S. BACH trans.
RACHMANINOV
Partita no.3, BWV 1006: Preludio
[03:13], Gavotte – Rondo [02:50],
Gigue [01:02]
MENDELSSOHN
trans. RACHMANINOV
A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Scherzo
[03:58]
Fritz KREISLER
(1875-1962) trans. RACHMANINOV
Liebesfreud [06:59]
SCHUBERT trans.
RACHMANINOV
Die schöne Müllerin: Wohin?
[02:19]
RACHMANINOV
Polka de V.R. [03:47], Etude-tableau
in A minor, op.39/6 [02:30], Prelude
in C sharp minor, op. 3/2 [03:36]
Modest MUSSORGSKY
trans. RACHMANINOV
The Fair at Sorochinsk: Hopak [01:46]
Piotr Il’yich
TCHAIKOVSKY (1840-1893) trans.
RACHMANINOV
Lullaby, op.16/1 [04:00]
Nikolai RIMSKY-KORSAKOV
(1844-1908) trans. RACHMANINOV
Tsar Saltan: The Flight of the Bumblebee
[01:10]
BEETHOVEN trans.
RACHMANINOV
The Ruins of Athens: Turkish March
[03:01]
ALEXANDER BORODIN
(1833-1887)
Scherzo in A flat [02:57]
TCHAIKOVSKY
Troika, op.37b/11 [03:54]
Alexander SCRIABIN
(1872-1915)
Prelude in F sharp minor, op.11/8 [02:34]
Johann STRAUSS
II (1825-1899) trans. TAUSIG
Man lebt nur einmal [06:57]
Traditional
trans. RACHMANINOV
Powder and Paint [03:45]
Nadejda Plevitskaya (mezzo-soprano)
RACHMANINOV
Polka italienne (4 hands)
Natalie Rachmaninov (piano)
CD 8 [63:17]
RACHMANINOV
Piano Concerto no.2 in C minor, op.18
[30:16]
Philadelphia Orchestra/Leopold Stokowski
Prelude in G flat, op.23/10 [03:11],
Prelude in E, op.32/3 [02:16], Prelude
in F, op.32/7 [02:09], Prelude in F
minor, op.32/6 [01:16], Etude-tableau
in C, op.33/2 [02:11], Etude-tableau
in E flat, op.33/7 [01:41], Daisies,
op.38/3 [02:06], Oriental Sketch [01:44],
Mélodie in E, op.3/3 [03:42],
Serenade in B flat minor, op.3/5 [02:49],
Humoresque in G, op.10/5 [03:24], Lilacs,
op.21/5 [03:24], Moment Musical in E
flat minor, op.16/2
CD 9 [62:45]
CHOPIN
Mazurka in C sharp minor, op.63/3 [02:01],
Nocturne in F sharp, op.15/2 [03:39],
Walt in E flat, op.18 [04:30], Waltz
in F, op.34/3 [02:44], Waltz in D flat,
op.64/1 [01:56], Waltz in B minor, op.69/2
[03:00], Waltz in G flat, op.70/1 [01:50],
Scherzo no.3 in C sharp minor, op.39
[06:54], Waltz in D flat, op.64/1 [02:12]
LOUIS-CLAUDE DAQUIN
(1694-1772)
Le coucou [02:00]
Georges BIZET
trans. RACHMANINOV
L’Arlésienne: Minuet [02:41]
Camille SAINT-SAËNS
(1835-1921) trans. SCRIABIN
Carnival of the Animals: The Swan
[03:01]
MENDELSSOHN
Lied ohne Worte in C, op.67/4 [01:40]
GRIEG
Waltz in A minor, op.12/2 [01:41], Elfin
Dance, op.12/4 [00:40]
Ernst von DOHNANYI
(1877-1960)
Etude in F minor, op.28/6 [02:40]
Adolph von HENSELT
(1814-1899)
Etude in F sharp minor, op.2/6 – Si
oiseau j’étais [01:42]
Moritz MOSZKOWSKI
(1854-1925)
Etude, op.52/4 – "La Jongleuse"
[01:48]
Claude DEBUSSY
(1862-1918)
Children’s Corner: 1. Dr. Gradus
ad Parnassum [02:02], 6. Golliwogg’s
Cakewalk [03:09]
TCHAIKOVSKY
Troika, op.37b/11 [03:49], Humoresque
in G, op.10/2 [02:45], Waltz in A flat,
op.40/8 [02:58]
CD 10 [67:49]
RACHMANINOV
Prelude in G minor, op.23/5 [03:32],
Prelude in G sharp minor, op.32/12 [02:31],
Prelude in C sharp minor, op.3/2 [03:36],
Prelude in G major, op.32/5 [02:59],
Serenade in B flat, op.3/5 [03:07],
Lilacs, op.21/5 [02:29], Polichinelle,
op.3/4 [03:35], Polka de V.R. [04:00]
KREISLER trans.
RACHMANINOV
Liebesleid [04:19]
LISZT trans.
RACHMANINOV
Hungarian Rhapsody no.2 [10:25]
DOMENICO SCARLATTI
(1685-1757)
trans. TAUSIG
Pastorale in E minor (after Sonata in
D minor, L.413) [03:59]
MOZART
Sonata in A, K.331: Theme and Variations
[04:05]
CHOPIN
Waltz in A flat, op.42 [03:52], Waltz
in A flat, op.64/3 [02:45]
RACHMANINOV
Polka de V.R [04:08], Barcarolle, op.10/3
[03:53], Prelude in C sharp minor, op.3/2
[03:41]
Sergei Rachmaninov (piano, except CD
3 where he conducts), with other artists
as listed under the individual works
Dates and locations not given (sic!)
Yes, you’ve read aright,
they really have issued all this historical
material without a single date. I presume
the general listener will at least have
the gumption to work out that since
the bloke doing the playing died in
1943, the recordings won’t be new ones.
The more specialized collector, who
is the more likely public for this sort
of issue, will leap at the chance of
getting all this material in single
neat box, and so completing his Rachmaninov-as-pianist
collection definitively. Except that
it won’t be definitive if he doesn’t
know the dates, if he can’t compare
multiple versions knowing which came
first. The specialist would also be
grateful for matrix numbers, original
issue dates and any other known information
such as locations and producers. I did
try to find this info on the internet
but I didn’t succeed.
It would also be a
treat to be told something about the
transfer methods, and who made them.
It seems to me that we have recordings
ranging over about twenty years (would
the truly dreadful-sounding "Polka
italienne", the only actually unlistenable
one, be the first?). I also think we
have transfers made at different times
and with different philosophies. The
concertos have hardly ever been out
of the catalogue and so LP transfers
were made early on. The idea here seems
to have been to make them sound as much
like modern recordings as possible.
At the other extreme, some of the originals
were in poor, scratched condition (test
pressings that somehow survived?), and
here the idea seems to have been, reasonably
enough, simply to "tell it like
it is", with all the hissing and
scratching unadulterated. The only thing
is, the more hiss there is, the more
Rachmaninov’s tone retains its bloom.
Likewise, if things
like composer’s dates are important
to you, you’d better print out the titles
above, because you won’t find them in
the booklet. Also, if you want the total
timing of a piece like "Carnival"
instead of just the individual pieces
(22 of them), and if you trust my arithmetic,
you’d better get that from here, too.
In view of the missing
information, I was completely bewildered
by the programmes on the original discs.
Maybe there is some sort of chronological
logic to it, but if we’re not told ...
. After groping around in the dark I
eventually listened in order of musical
chronology and accordingly discuss the
performances in that order. The booklet
does contain quite a nice essay by Stefan
Schikhaus, but quite honestly, if it
had to be one or the other, I think
any collector would have preferred the
discographical information and foregone
the essay.
BAROQUE
Not much of this, of
course, and we have to make allowances
for an unauthentic approach. Indeed,
Rachmaninov seems happier playing his
own full-textured transcription of three
movements from a Partita for solo violin
than the Sarabande actually written
for the keyboard. The former has virtuoso
flair while the latter is a little odd.
He regularly halves the tempo for the
arpeggio in the second bar introducing
each part. What follows is intermittently
imaginative but rather lacking in Bachian
gravitas. Likewise the Handel,
after a solid enunciation of the theme,
tears along but sometimes he
holds up the tempo for just a few notes
in the middle of a variation. It’s all
very wilful, enthralling to hear just
once but hardly for repeated listening.
It lacks the noble simplicity we normally
value in this composer. Tausig’s Scarlatti
mish-mash has a good deal of atmosphere
and Daquin’s Le coucou is extremely
poetic. He gives the cuckoo-calls a
slightly droll, hesitant rhythm. Puzzling
over why this sounds marvellous when
he does it but would just sound like
wonky rhythm if I did it, I think it
must be because he nevertheless keeps
the right hand absolutely even. We lesser
fry would have to make our right hand
wonky to match the cuckoo whereas he
has complete independence of hands.
CLASSICAL
Not much of this either,
with just about half a Mozart sonata
spread over two discs. I say about half
because he plays only the theme and
variations 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the first
movement; the only repeat he plays is
the first of variation 6. Very personalized
playing, with free tempo changes, often
dwelling on just a single note here
or there. The sound is of crystalline
clarity, though, not romantic at all,
and his love of the music shines through.
There may be more to learn here than
we would imagine, for his free approach
makes the music far more interesting
than many "correct" versions
we hear. His "Rondo alla Turca"
is delightfully unhurried and humorous
and whatever we might think of certain
points along the way the basic idea
can stand as a model even today. It
sounds as though Rachmaninov’s Mozart
could have been highly interesting,
but this brief glimpse is hardly enough
to draw any conclusions.
The only other "classical"
piece recorded is a romantic transcription,
romantically played, of the flute solo
movement from Gluck’s "Orfeo"
BEETHOVEN
At least the single
work recorded is one of some scale,
though Rachmaninov was evidently briefed
to get it all on two 78 sides and therefore
omits eight of the variations. There
are one or two rhythmic distortions
but by and large this is Beethoven playing
in line with today’s conceptions. The
sound is full and authoritative without
ever becoming thick, and if his Beethoven
makes a more beautiful sound than Schnabel’s
in spite of the ancient recording, this
is probably because the sound he created
was more beautiful in itself. Each of
the tiny variations is brought to life
with great artistry and feeling for
its particular atmosphere.
The deliberately grotesque
rendering of the "Ruins of Athens"
March hardly makes amends for the fact
that we have not a single Beethoven
sonata (or even movement) from Rachmaninov.
The booklet track list, by the way,
says that this transcription is Rachmaninov’s
own, while Schickhaus’s note refers
to it as Anton Rubinstein’s. The truth
may be betwixt and between, since there
are considerable variations from my
copy of the Rubinstein transcription
(an old Ashdown Edition), but perhaps
not as many as there would be if Rachmaninov
had worked quite independently from
the Beethoven original.
EARLY ROMANTICS
(EXCLUDING CHOPIN)
If there were interpreters
in the 1920s and 1930s who were already
producing a Beethoven style we can still
recognize today, a real understanding
of Schubert’s pianism is surely a post-war
phenomenon. He was widely regarded as
just the composer of touching little
songs and it seems that Rachmaninov
was happier playing transcriptions
of these than original works. His
own arrangement of "Wohin"
is a bizarre affair, more for a party
late at night than a piano recital,
but the Liszt transcriptions have had
many advocates. "Das Wandern"
is straightforward and straightforwardly
played, while in "Ständchen"
Rachmaninov reveals his mastery of that
independent "voicing" of melody
and accompaniment which was such a feature
of Golden Age pianism. It is by this
means that a degree of rhythmic freedom
in shaping the melody which would theoretically
be more suited to Léhar remains
convincing; the accompanying figure
does not get bogged down trying to follow
the vocal line, it maintains an independent
lilt of its own.
In the Impromptu we
can certainly admire the delicacy of
Rachmaninov’s passage-work but his dynamics
are frequently the exact reverse of
those written; the chords which alternate
with the passage-work are surprisingly
dry while the stormy passion with which
he invests the central section transports
it to the world of the Russian romantics.
I have happily accepted such aberrations
and worse in his Chopin for there he
is fundamentally in sympathy with the
composer; here I am afraid they symptomatic
of the fact that he had not found Schubert’s
true voice.
Mendelssohn’s sparkling
little encore pieces used to be more
highly considered than they are now.
In Rachmaninov’s own transcription of
the "Midsummer Night’s Dream"
scherzo I expected something a bit lighter
and more fantastic than this admittedly
proficient performance (recorded too
close, perhaps?), but he is to be commended
for leaving the beaten track for the
two Studies. I feel a more urbanely
fluent performance of the F major would
have showed it in better light than
this slightly aggressive treatment but
the A minor is unusually audacious harmonically
for Mendelssohn and Rachmaninov makes
the most of it.
The piece given its
German title "Spinnerlied"
(Spinning Song) on the track list is
usually called "The Bees’ Wedding"
in English-speaking countries (neither
name is Mendelssohn’s) and I can’t help
thinking Rachmaninov had bees in mind,
and a pretty hostile swarm of them in
the performance on CD 5. He sometimes
gives them an extra bar or two that
is not written and begins the melody
with a strange pause on the upbeat that
makes no sense to me at all. Was it
his own idea or did he have a corrupt
edition? The two performances are identical
in these matters but that on CD 9, which
sounds from the recording quality to
be the more recent, takes just that
little more time to sound bubblingly
humorous rather than angry, and is to
my ears more Mendelssohnian. Indeed,
apart from the oddities mentioned, I
can’t imagine it played better.
Schumann’s "Carnaval",
one of the very few large-scale solo
works Rachmaninov was able to set down,
is a famous recording but also a controversial
one. I must say that, alongside the
Schubert Impromptu it’s almost a model
of fidelity! It’s true that Rachmaninov
announces early on that he’s going to
be his own man, when he plays the forte
interjections in "Pierrot"
staccato (they are marked legato), but
it’s also true that I’ve never heard
this usually rather doleful little piece
sound so convincing and in any case
this is imaginative music that cannot
be played just literally. Rachmaninov’s
flexible yet infectious rhythm carries
him through in a performance that has
tremendous overall sweep while finding
time to characterize to the full every
nook and cranny of the score. This is
one of the great Schumann performances
on record. The song transcription by
Tausig, rumbustiously played, is less
essential.
Liszt’s stock was pretty
low in those days and it must be said
that, while Rachmaninov’s three chosen
pieces are fairly showy ones, he always
sought out the music and the poetry
in them. To demonstrate that a Liszt
Polonaise could be worth hearing alongside
a Chopin one was a piece of proselytising
in its day and, though he presents the
Hungarian Rhapsody in his own arrangement,
it is a wonderfully musical performance,
without a trace of camp gypsy antics,
just infectious, joyous rhythms and
an incredible clarity in the most taxing
passages. These three performances are
sufficient to place Rachmaninov high
among Liszt interpreters.
CHOPIN
The two Liszt song
transcriptions on CD 5 have a good deal
of spirit. Heimkehr sounds like
a good alternative for anyone who feels
he’s heard or played the so-called "Revolutionary
Study" a few times too often.
Like all pianists of
his generation Rachmaninov was mostly
confined to recording pieces that would
go onto a single 78 side. The 2nd
Sonata and the 3rd Ballade
on CD 6 and the 3rd Scherzo
CD 9 offer rare opportunities to hear
him in something more extended. The
Ballade is the most impressive, indeed
extraordinary. The tender expressiveness
of the opening, with its agogic freedom,
its refined dynamic range and its subtle
voicing reveal a great pianist as much
as, maybe more than, the flights of
prestidigitation heard later. In common
with many other pianists and conductors
of those days he does not see structure
as something to be created by a steady
rhythmic trajectory, he will fly away
one moment and hold back the next, but
somehow the performance retains an overall
shape. He finds a range of mood and
expression in this piece that not many
present-day interpreters would dare
to attempt.
Much the same could
be said of the Sonata. You will have
to bear with him when he follows Anton
Rubinstein’s famous trick (criticised
even in its day) of treating the Funeral
March as a steady crescendo the first
time round, then giving it a crashing
start when it returns after the trio
and thereafter making a steady diminuendo,
rather than following Chopin’s own dynamic
scheme. Indeed, I would suggest that
you don’t get out scores to follow these
performances (I purposely didn’t); just
listen to them as the work of a great
re-creative artist.
The Scherzo is one
of his more eccentric performances.
The faster sections are quite manically
fast – I have to envy anyone who can
rattle off octaves like that – while
the chorale is nostalgically slow and
gloomy. Indeed, with its haunting bell-interjections
this is a rare case where Rachmaninov
seems not to have been able to resist
making it sound like a piece of his
own. In general, whatever you may think,
he respects the composer’s style as
he perceives it and does not try to
make the music sound like his own.
The presence of nine
waltzes spread between CDs 6, 9 and
10 (and two versions of two of them)
means he got half-way towards a "complete"
version, so we can get a good idea of
his vision of this particular area of
Chopin’s output. Only in the E minor
do I find him fast and snatched – did
he have to squeeze it onto a single
side with another piece as well? For
the rest, he has a wonderful sense of
rhythmic vivacity, treating op.18 remarkably
simply and steadily. He finds great
elegance in the G flat and his two versions
of the so-called "Minute Waltz"
are unrepentantly just below and just
above the two-minute mark. This is not
because he is so very slow in the outer
sections – quite the reverse – but because
he relaxes a good deal in the middle.
The two performances are fascinatingly
different. That on track 9 begins by
absolutely tearing away – he’d have
got through it in under a minute if
he’d kept this up all the way through!
– and then treats the middle section
extremely freely and nostalgically.
That on track 5 is in the same mould
but relatively disciplined. This is
one of the occasions where I most regret
the lack of proper information. Which
came first? How far apart? Were they
both passed for release? Did he realize,
on hearing track 9, that he’d exaggerated
and deliberately play straight the next
take? Or did he think track 5 too plain
and make a freer version? The two versions
of op.64/3 have identical timings and
the only substantial difference is that
the performance on CD 10 has such heavy
surfaces that you’re unlikely to want
to hear it very often. The op.42 waltz
on disc 10 is another touchstone of
Rachmaninov’s heady elegance in this
music.
RUSSIANS (EXCLUDING
RACHMANINOV HIMSELF)
The impression is that
Rachmaninov was no great ambassador
for the music of his native land, as
often as not playing it, if at all,
in his own arrangements, but the recorded
repertoire may not give a wholly true
picture. I understand that he was very
interested in "Pictures at an Exhibition"
and at first considered making his own
arrangement (as Horowitz did), but then
decided to let well alone. Unfortunately
my informant was not able to confirm
whether he actually played it in the
end.
So here, on CD 7 we
have a trio of transcriptions, beginning
with an upfront Mussorgsky "Hopak"
and ending with the famous "Flight
of the Bumblebee" arrangement.
Not many of those who later took it
up have played it with the same miraculous
lightness. I couldn’t find a copy of
the original Tchailovsky "Lullaby"
to see what Rachmaninov has done with
it, but to my ears there’s more Rachmaninov
than Tchaikovsky here. It’s certainly
effective and another example of his
ability to separate melodic and accompanying
strands.
Of the original pieces,
he certainly makes a case for the Borodin
Scherzo as being both pianistically
and musically effective. Tchaikovsky’s
"Troika" is frankly weird.
The timing of almost 4 minutes (about
3 is normal) raised my eyebrows and
sure enough the opening section is treated
as a romantically expressive slow piece.
Yet Tchaikovsky marked it "Allegro
moderato" and it usually bounds
along as joyfully as a sleigh-ride should.
Then in the middle section he dashes
off at a "normal" tempo so
what happens when the original theme
is combined with snowy 16th-note
figuration? He keeps up his fast tempo
until the snowy figuration stops, drops
back to a romantically inflected "Andante
mesto", tears away again and adds
an extra bar or two at the end, making
the Troika slow down and stop. But since
Tchaikovsky put no rallentando, surely
he wanted to give the impression that
the sleigh was disappearing in the distance?
The performance on CD 9 has a quite
different acoustic and heavy surface
noise but the interpretation is basically
the same.
Interestingly, Richter
(BBC Legends) sounds to have been haunted
by this interpretation, while realizing
it was wrong. His own performance is
an uneasy compromise between what Rachmaninov
did and what Tchaikovsky wrote, with
an opening much more moderato than allegro
but not actually andante, a dashing
middle section and similar though less
extreme inconsistency of tempi when
the opening theme is combined with the
snowy figuration. Both pianists seem
to be creating problems over a piece
that has none if played simply and as
written, rather like a spare movement
from the "Nutcracker".
Of the other Tchaikovsky
pieces the "Humoresque" (better
known today by Stravinsky’s use of it
in "The Fairy’s Kiss"; the
curious harmonic clashes are Tchaikovsky’s
own, not Stravinsky’s) gets an excellent,
uncomplicated performance. I had no
score for the Waltz but it has the grace
and elegance typical of Tchaikovsky’s
lighter moments. The Scriabin is another
controversial performance, however.
It is very beautiful but far more an
"Andante espressivo" than
the "Allegro agitato" (fourth-note
= 132) marked. But here the question
arises – was this Rachmaninov’s personal
idea or had he heard the composer play
it that way? (In the case of the Tchaikovsky
"Troika" too much time had
already passed for direct contact to
be likely and Tchaikovsky didn’t play
in public so far as I know, but we cannot
rule out the possibility that Rachmaninov
had known somebody with the necessary
inside knowledge to tell him Tchaikovsky
wanted it to be played in this manner).
ODDS AND ENDS
Many of these are further
transcriptions by Rachmaninov himself.
The two performances of Kreisler’s Liebesfreud
could hardly be more different.
That on CD 5 is two minutes shorter
and seems to represent a cynical attempt
to make the music sound even more rubbishy
than it actually is. For the version
on CD 7 he had recovered his poise and
takes all the time he needs to dwell
on the old-world charm of the piece
in a manner close to that of Kreisler
himself. The Liebesleid on CD
10 is also lovingly expounded. He has
fun with the Paderewski, the Strauss/Tausig
and the Bizet while the Scriabin arrangement
of Saint-Saëns’ Swan is a touchstone
of his ability to balance melody and
accompaniment. Many a cellist might
envy such a richly singing tone which
really does seem a separate instrument
compared with the delicate accompanying
arpeggios – all the more remarkable
when the melody is usually in the middle
of the texture.
The Grieg pieces were
perhaps memories of his earliest piano
lessons – and in the case of the "Elfin
Dance" not remembered quite right,
since he adds a few bars here and subtracts
others there. Not many children could
play it this fast and I wish Rachmaninov
hadn’t done so either. The "Waltz",
on the other hand, is exquisite. It
also solves a mystery. When listening
on headphones I had noticed quite often
a suspicion of a wheezy grunting sound
that might have been some sort of defect
of the recording, or Rachmaninov’s beloved
Pekinese which he insisted on taking
into the studio (I don’t really know
whether he had one, don’t take me up
on this), or, just possibly, Rachmaninov’s
own vocalizing. In the middle section
of this piece the wheezing grunt, however
out of tune, goes up and down with the
melody, and Pekinese can’t do this.
So it’s Rachmaninov’s own voice which
we hear from time to time.
From memories of the
nursery, the Dohnányi, Henselt
and Moszkowski are maybe memories of
the Conservatoire (but perhaps the first
of these had not yet been written when
Rachmaninov was a student); they show
the fine state of his technique. In
Debussy, as in Grieg, he scores one
hit and one miss. "Dr. Gradus ad
Parnassum" has some moments of
absolute perfection, but he substitutes
Debussy’s meticulously worked-out dynamic
scheme with one of his own. He is occasionally
free with "Golliwogg’s Cakewalk"
but his rhythm is so infectious and
the actual sonority so beautifully realized
that this has to be one of the outstanding
Debussy performances on disc.
Schikhaus tells us
that Rachmaninov recorded "a number
of Russian folksongs" with Plevitskaya,
so perhaps he might have explained why,
in a complete edition, there is only
one here. At first I was aghast at her
voice, but then I realized she should
perhaps be labelled "vocalist"
rather than "mezzo-soprano"
for it’s not a classically trained voice
at all, more a cabaret style with a
slight suggestion of Edith Piaf. Once
I’d got my bearings I found it rather
fascinating.
We really should have
been told the provenance of the duet
with Natalie Rachmaninov – the sound
is quite unspeakably awful, like a honky-tonk
piano recorded on wax.
RACHMANINOV’S OWN
COMPOSITIONS – THE SOLO WORKS
In a way less need
be said here since the interpretations
are obviously not up for criticism.
It would be disingenuous to say that
this music was made for Rachmaninov
to play, for he wrote most of it in
the early part of his career when he
considered himself – and was considered
– principally a composer. Knowing full
well that the life of a piece of music
depends on it being performed, obviously
he wanted other pianists to take it
up. Nevertheless, the particular features
of Rachmaninov’s pianism, and in particular
his quite exceptional ability to create
a dialogue between two or more melodic
strands while at the same time maintaining
entirely separate his often obsessive
accompanying figures and any other harmonic
support, and to colour all these elements
so that his often teeming textures are
perfectly clear to the listener, are
desirable in any music, but are features
which often make all the difference
between a Rachmaninov work sounding
a thing of beauty or merely barnstorming
virtuosity (or just a mess). Far more
than matters of rubato or even tempi,
which may be personal to some degree,
any pianist intending to play this music
should study these discs carefully to
come to terms with the type of
pianism required. It would be easy enough
to imitate the extreme rallentandos
he inserts in the G major prelude, or
his sudden spurts of tempo in the filigree
decorative passages; I hope anyone who
tries this will also feel bound to reproduce
(if he can!) the way his accompanying
left-hand quintuplets shimmer with a
life of their own and the rocking figure
played contemporaneously in the left
hand seems to continue its individual
way whatever rubato is taking place
in the melody itself.
Two other personal
features might be noted. One is a tendency
to double-dot any dotted rhythms, as
in the G minor or the aforesaid G major.
The other is a way of beginning a lyrical
theme with an accent, particularly if
it is in dialogue with another theme.
This way the listener can hear very
clearly the way the argument is being
thrown from voice to voice. A last point
is that the triple versions of the inevitable
C sharp minor Prelude and the "Polka
di V.R.", as well as the double
versions of the "Serenade",
show that he was fairly consistent in
his interpretations of his own music,
though I wish I had been told how
far apart in time the versions are.
THE CONCERTOS
These are some of the
most famous records ever made! In these
larger-scale works we can note some
other features of his pianism. While
many later pianists have emphasized
the weight of the writing, making the
music resemble the "Hollywood concerto"
which drew upon it, Rachmaninov himself
leans closer to his pianistic roots,
with a gentle Schumannesque dialogue
between the voices, combined with flexible,
yielding rhythms, in the lyrical passages,
and a Mendelssohnian sparkle in the
brilliant passage-work. Of course he
can produce weight and power when needed
– as in the cadenza to the first movement
of no.1 – but this is reserved for passing
moments. Nor does he emphasize the louring
gloom, preferring flowing tempi and
balanced structures.
The question is, should
we follow him in this? It is sometimes
said, "Ah, if only we could hear
how Bach or Mozart or Beethoven played
their music". The principal lesson
from Rachmaninov’s own recordings, above
all those of his concertos, seems to
be that, if we could hear Bach
and Mozart and Beethoven playing their
own works, people would go on playing
them how they damn well like anyway.
But is this entirely wrong? Another
lesson from Rachmaninov’s recordings,
this time not of his own music, is that
in view of the freedom with which he
interpreted other people’s music he
may even have expected people
to play his own music with similar freedom.
So is Richter’s much slower version
of Concerto no.2 a lugubrious aberration,
or does it legitimately reveal a particular
aspect of Rachmaninov’s psyche? Was
the composer over-reluctant to display
his neuroses in public when playing,
even though he had done so when composing?
The lesson to be taken
to heart, it seems to me, is more the
type of pianism required than
relatively superficial, and in any case
personal, issues such as tempi, rubato,
etc. A recent attempt by Stephen Hough
to ape these more superficial aspects
of these performances seemed to me unconvincing,
though mine was very much a minority
view. Regarding no.2, I do find Richter
most impressive – I am referring to
the Melodiya version with Sanderling
– and Rachmaninov himself a shade too
easy-flowing. A pianist I find very
satisfying in this piece is Stanislav
Neuhaus, son of the legendary Heinrich
Neuhaus, teacher of Richter and many
others, and a great pianist and teacher
in his own right. With timings only
a few seconds longer than Rachmaninov’s,
he allowed the music just that little
more breathing space without actually
changing its character. But as far as
I am aware his performance is not available
in any form.
With no.3 there is
the mystery of the cuts Rachmaninov
allowed – not just a question of fitting
it onto a given number of 78s for the
original issue had a blank side. Otherwise
it’s a marvellous performance. For an
uncut performance the Ashkenazy/Ormandy
takes a lot of beating. It’s generally
considered that Michelangeli surpassed
Rachmaninov at his own game (by which
I mean that the type of pianism
and the style of the performance is
similar) in no.4. I have not heard finer
performances of no.1 or the Paganini
variations.
Presumably the performance
of no.2 on CD 8 is the earlier one.
Rachmaninov is freer here in the first
movement (and Stokowski is less subtle
in the transitions), about the same
in the second – demonstrating both times
the virtues of not stopping every
time the harmonies change – and surprisingly
humdrum in the finale which is much
better in the later performance.
RECORDINGS WITH
KREISLER
The real problem here
is the balance. Kreisler is recorded
close up with a gritty, airless sound
considerably removed from the sweet
timbre he is reported to have had and
to which some of his other recordings
testify. I suppose the transfer engineers
might have tried to attenuate this,
but they would then have exacerbated
the other problem, which is that Rachmaninov’s
piano is already muffled and recessed.
This plays havoc with Beethoven’s inventive
dialogue between two equal partners.
The Schubert has the piano in a more
conventionally accompanying role but
even here you feel the need for a warm
cushion of support for the violin which
otherwise becomes oppressively dominating.
And while Grieg hardly aspired to the
contrapuntal virtuosity of Beethoven
you only have to hear a badly balanced
performance to realise how much he depends
on a continuous exchange of melodic
phrases between the two instruments
for his effect.
Not much pure listening
enjoyment to be got from this, then.
Those preparing to play these works
might wish to pay heed to them. Vague
fears of gratuitous virtuosity from
Rachmaninov and excessive schmaltz from
Kreisler can be forgotten; both musicians
play with unaffected simplicity and
a sense of enjoyment. However incompletely,
the CD does provide us with some evidence
of Rachmaninov’s abilities as a chamber
musician.
RACHMANINOV THE
CONDUCTOR
When Rachmaninov emigrated
to America he was already known there
as both pianist and conductor. Indeed,
while he had aimed up till that time
to be first and foremost a composer,
his reputation at home and in Europe
generally as a conductor was extraordinarily
high, perhaps no les than that he enjoyed
as a pianist. He quickly saw that he
would not be able to make a living in
the United States as a composer, so
the choice was between playing and conducting.
Since he was twice offered the conductorship
of the Boston Symphony Orchestra he
certainly did not lack opportunities
in this second role. However, he had
misgivings of his own for his conducting
had been mostly limited to the Russian
repertoire and he felt that any repertory
deficiencies could be better made up
in private, as it were, at the piano.
Thus he chose to be a pianist.
Though it is difficult
to be sure on the strength of a recorded
legacy amounting to less than an hour
of his own compositions, all the evidence
is that Rachmaninov the conductor could
indeed have matched Rachmaninov the
pianist. While it is true that an orchestra
of the quality of the Philadelphia,
maybe pre-rehearsed by Stokowski or
Ormandy, could have bailed out a respected
composer who wasn’t much cop on the
rostrum (this has frequently been done),
there can be no doubting Rachmaninov’s
control over events, nor the fundamental
similarity in the interpretative method
he shows in the two roles. The first
theme of the opening movement of the
symphony, for example, shows exactly
the same precision in balancing melody
and countermelody, while the lyrical
themes are played with great freedom
(perfectly controlled) yet with a fundamental
sense of reserve. He can obtain great
brilliance, stunning attack, and can
also suddenly lighten the textures.
As far as the somewhat strident and
overloaded recordings allow us to tell,
he always achieved great transparency.
There is no gratuitous gushing.
If we compare him with
Koussevitsky in "The Isle of the
Dead", we may note that the latter
conductor is more concerned with passing
details, frequently illuminating the
textures from within. Rachmaninov is
more remote, suggesting a slumbering
giant which, when it does awake, achieves
colossal power. We may also note that
Rachmaninov is no less able than Koussevitsky
to involve the orchestra and the audience
in an experience of mesmerizing intensity.
Rachmaninov conductors, then, can learn
from these records no less than Rachmaninov
pianists about the kind of orchestral
style he wanted.
CONCLUSIONS
Schickhaus’s essay
quotes Arthur Rubinstein’s "strong
opinion" that Rachmaninov was "a
greater pianist than a composer",
the "most fascinating ... since
Busoni". If we reflect that Busoni’s
meagre discography (about half a CD’s
worth) simply doesn’t permit us to verify
his stature, we should be grateful that
we can get at least a fair idea of Rachmaninov’s
playing. As I said at the beginning,
this 10-CD box of everything he recorded
(leaving aside the piano rolls) ought
to provide every collector with
a definitive solution. It doesn’t, firstly
because of the missing information in
the booklet. Could Sony/BMG not reconsider
this? But it also doesn’t – and it is
perhaps right that it shouldn’t – because
of the transfers. Not that they are
not good, according to their various
lights. But since it is startling how
different the same performance can sound
transferred in different ways, I shall
always be interested to hear what Mark
Obert-Thorn, for example, might make
of some of these discs. My possession
of this box does not mean I will get
no further versions of these performances.
All the same, and in
spite of the booklet, the opportunity
to gather the entire legacy of one of
the greatest of all pianists in a single
box is not one to be missed.
Christopher Howell
BMG-RCA RED SEAL 82876-67892-2 [10 CDs:
67:49 + 62:45 + 62:30 + 65:03 + 66:00 + 58:14
+ 58:54 + 71:52 + 65:39]
