Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Rachmaninoff - 'The Puritan Pianist' faithfulness to score

Rach. prepared his works for publication very carefully. The copy I have (Boosey & Hawkes 1992) of preludes is careful not to have added anything that wasn't in his manuscripts.

This raises the question, as so many have argued here, about adding to the score that which is not indicated. So... there are no pedalling marks anywhere. Two possible answers: One is not expected to use the damper pedal to play the preludes (highly unlikely), or, one uses the damper pedal to create the line and sonority implied by the structure of the composition in accordance with performance practice of the time in which it was written (more likely).

But that is not my question. In Op.32 No. 10, in the phrase below,



I would like to use the sostenuto pedal for the sustained chords, so that I can clear the second beat and leave the upper chord hanging. I doubt Rach. had many pianos with a sostenuto pedal, so what I am suggesting is not kosher(as it were).

What think you?

Why would you clear the second beat? All it does is add body to the tones already sounding. Maybe it's too kosher because you are trying to follow the note value in the most absolute way.

But by your own description, Rachmaninoff would expect you to apply pedaling to achieve an ideal sound. I don't think you need to worry about clearing or not clearing the beat at all. Do it either way and it is fine but one is certainly more hassle!

One more thing..you will notice that he has written a quarter rest for that exact spot to 'clear the second beat' in measure 4. This is explicit and the prior measures are not so I think you should take that into consideration. (as well as the zero experience I have with this piece)

I have played this piece both ways - using the damper and clearing as required when the harmony shifts, and using the sostenuto, to let the chord hang in the air. I like both ways. Measure 4 highlights the issue though as you point out. I am assuming that the dots, when used by Rach. are meant to indicate lifting of the hands from the note, a rather self-evident requirement, if you want play the next notes.

If you look at the famous C# minor prelude, op 3 no 2, he does a similar thing with the octaves in the second full measure and so on, until the twelfth full measure, where he explicitly slurs the octaves. I have a recording of Rach. playing this piece and he separates the octaves very slightly the when they are dotted and not when they are slurred. Food for thought.

The alternating tenutos and staccatos indicated on the chords show you where the weight should be - on the downbeats (the longer chords), with the quarter notes just punctuating the space in between.

The notation helps us remember where the weight is, even though it's more intuitive to push off of the tied half notes, and fall down onto the quarter notes - Rachmaninoff is indicating that the reverse should be done.

I like arguments from a close reading of the text like this, although we fall into the trap of possibly reading it more carefully than Rachmaninoff wrote it. However, here I don't think the quarter rest in m.4 is evidence to sustain the beat 2 notes in the earlier measures. The rest may be there simply because there is also a staccato chord on beat 4 in that measure; i.e. that "lower line" of chords takes up all of m.4, whereas in the earlier measures it is abandoned after beat 2.

As to the OP's question: I think the idea of clearing the 2nd beat is interesting. He did go out of his way to mark them staccato after all. Try it. There's no right answer.


-Jason

Rachmaninov was not a puritan when it comes to playing his own music, and certainly not when playing others' music (check out his Chopin, Schumann et al).

Why do you feel the need to apply 'puritan values' (whatever they are) to playing his music? Use all three pedals (or four, if you have them) as you feel, to get the sound and sonority and effect you want.

Good point. In his recording of Op 3 no 2, he does precisely what you suggest, and even goes further - he varies the emphasis between the bass in one measure and treble in the next for the same phrase (measure 12,13).

Well, as you know, this is a huge bone of contention on this forum. In the final analysis, I decide what I am going to do, and take whatever criticism in stride. However, it seems disrespectful to ignore what the composer wrote - in the case of Rach., he was known for his precision in preparing manuscripts for publication and in his playing, hence the term 'Puritan Pianist' that was used to describe his composition and his playing. Criticism of my interpretation of his score should be justifiable if I deviate too far.

You should take Rach's own views into account, and what he actually did in his own lifetime - not what the HIP and Urtext brigade have foisted onto us in recent decades.

He sanctioned what Horowitz did with his 3rd Concerto and 2nd Sonata (cuts, amendments et al) yet also liked Gieseking's 3rd Concerto (unlike Horowitz, he played it complete, and used the original big cadenza). He himself never even played his Corelli Variations in its entirety, cutting out variations depending on the amount of audience participation (i.e. coughing). Precision in his playing? (BTW, there are wrong notes in his recordings, if you're talking 'precision' of another sort).

If you regard the Urtext score as sacred, then you wouldn't be using any pedal at all....

Yeah, I agree with you in general. I don't regard Urtext as sacred, just as a guide that requires the addition of HIP techniques when called for, as in the case of Baroque ornamentation where one needs to guess at what J.S. did as opposed to Clérambault on a note that obviously needs an ornament , but none was indicated. That being said, I have recordings of Rach. playing, and in many cases there is a clarity that is absent in the playing of many of his contemporaries. I think he was smart to let performers add their own interpretation to his music.

Hello Prout, is this for a concert?

If so, in my opinion you should play whatever makes sense to you or your performance will at best lack conviction or at worst be a downright dishonest one.

If what makes sense to you is a radical departure from convention then it is probably fair to make this clear to a fee-paying audience in advance but apart from that caveat you are the performer, if you are not 100% convinced by what you are performing, what chance has the audience got?

DazedAndConfused,

I am trying to make sense of the cycle of preludes in Op 32 for eventual performance. When I learn new music, I do not listen to recordings until I have realized my own voice, then listen to see how my interpretation varies from the crowd. Most of the time, it is within the range of interpretations out there. In this case, I find the upper chords haunting, and in need of suspension. That is why I am moved to lift the pedal in those measures, just a bit before the next notes, to allow the upper chords to ring - much as the sound of a full organ chord dies away in a cathedral. The bass is lost first, and the upper sounds ring for a long time.

That is all the justification you need. When the artist has a strong point of view / connection to another artist's composition and pursues that vision with conviction then there exists the possibility of something original, magical and memorable occurring.

The alternative is what I call musical touch typing; all the notes in the right order at the right tempo at the right volume, perfectly tasteful but totally dead.

Very curious about the new Henle version of his preludes. Anyone seen it yet?

I do the same thing when approaching a new piece.

General question: Will you be playing the entire Opus 32, or select Preludes? There are real gems within the Opus...but No. 1 has never made a lot of sense to me. I love the ending and that's it! haha

At this point select preludes, but that may change.

Yeah, no 1 is a bit weird, but up to temple and keeping the triplet chromaticism gentle in comparison to the melodic lines, seems to create an interesting effect. I love the ending. True jazz.

I think that that statement is open to debate. Knowing what we know of the style of Rachmaninoff's writing, the absence of pedal marks - Urtext edition or others - is no indication that we shouldn't use pedal.

The same could be said about many composers and 'original,' 'Urtext,' or 'authoritative' editions. There's hardly a single pedal marking in any of Debussy's music; to suggest that following the score means that no pedal should be used is ludicrous in the extreme.

Regards,

That was a rhetorical statement I made .

To show that Rachmaninov's so-called urtext score isn't meant to be used literally.

Even the first few bars of his 2nd concerto is enough to show that (i.e. what he wrote compared to what he played).

On the other hand, you have Ravel's famous "Performers are slaves!" admonishment - and he meant what he said.

We should stop regarding all scores as sacred cows. Especially those by certain composers.

I didn't realize there was a Henle edition. I've looked and looked for ANY Rachmaninoff publishers other than Schirmer.

On an aside, I became familiar with a few gems written in Rachmaninoff's earliest years on Allesio Bax' recording of Rach. Included in the book, Early Piano Works, are Romance, Prelude, Melodie, Gavotte, Canon, another Prelude, Fughetta. There's also a very interesting story about how the manuscripts were found in Russia and removed by a relative...a son, if I recall correctly. Anyway, none are terribly difficult, in fact rather simple, and it's fun to see how he developed from these earliest beautiful pieces.

Check them out. I have them in an Edition Sikorski 1555.