Talk:Piano Concerto No. 2 (Rachmaninoff)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piano Concerto No. 2 (Rachmaninoff) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

"At some parts of the concerto, the pianist is required to reach 9 whole steps"

This seems a very illogical way to describe an interval, and I feel it would be expressed much more clearly with "augmented 11th" or "diminished 12th". Could someone with knowledge or a score of the concerto please check to see which is correct, and amend it appropriately? Pscholl 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Whether these intervals are harmonic or melodic would also be very relevant (whether it's simply a matter of hand span or just fast lare jumps). So if someone is going to go through the trouble of checking the score... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.233.35 (talk • contribs)

Check the image, it is a low F with the Ab an octave above, so a harmonic diminished 12th. --Alexs letterbox 11:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Trivia

Matt Bellamy, the lead singer of Muse cites Rachmaninoff as a major influence on his piano style. Additionally, Bellamy is greatly influenced by Romanticism and this is evident through all of Muses' albums to date, in particular songs such as Space Dementia, Apocalypse Please and Ruled by Secrecy.

Matt Bellamy might be influenced by Rachmaninoff, but this doesn't really have much to do with Sergei's 2nd piano concerto itself. If no one objects, I'll remove this piece of trivia, and perhaps move it to an appropriate section in either Matthew Bellamy or Sergei Rachmaninoff. Drumnbach 22:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I re-added a similar but more appropriate line to the popular culture section. At least I think it's appropriate, but being a muse fan, my opinion might be skewed a bit ;) . Spang 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Should more be made of this pieces connection with the film Brief Encounter? Since the piece is used as the soundtrack to the entire film and the combination of the two greatly increased the popularity of the piece in the UK amongst other countries. ||||

Butterflies and Hurricanes is obviously based on the 2nd's conclusion. I have no source about that so I won't include any mention in the article. 70.80.113.243 17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tonality

10/03/06

Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2, Op. 18, is a piano concerto written in 1901 in the key of C minor.

I'm 100% sure that this concerto is in C# minor, not C-minor... yet the (original?) author assumes it to be in C minor for whatever reason and describes some chord progressions as B-flat, D-flat, etc. Now, I don't know the score well enough to say that there aren't modulations into those chords, but I'm assuming that since the original key was brought down a half step, those chords should also be brought up a half step (since B minor and some sort of augmentation into a D major chord make much more sense in the key of C# minor, where the enharmonic equivalents A# and... C# make less sense). I have the score available to me, but even if I looked through the entire thing it's very possiblle I might miss those chords. Could the original submitter comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.233.35 (talk • contribs)

A quick googling confirms it's in C minor. --Fang Aili talk 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. It begins in C minor and ends, at the end of the third movement anyway, in C major, which would be very much vagrant for C-sharp minor- Rachmaninoff was willing to do such things but more maybe at the end of his life than in 1901. Are we talking about the same piece? (Maybe the C-sharp minor prelude instead though I doubt it?...) (C-sharp minor concertos are not unknown- Xaver Scharwenka no. 3 is a very good one, btw, and Ries 3 will be getting a new recording from Naxos soon, to name two piano concertos in that key; and Franz Berwald's violin concerto is also in that key... - but it is a rare key for orchestral compositions generally, I think. A few symphonies - one by Rangström in Sweden? And Prokofiev no. 7 a much better-known and wonderful one... Shostakovich violin concerto no. 2 of course also!! Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what key it ends in. The composer always names it for its opening key signature (C minor)
It's possible that it was originally written, like Brahms' 3rd piano quartet is believed to have been, in C-sharp minor (parts of that work anyway), but to claim so I think requires more evidence than is to hand, I think? Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When listening to the concerto, the recording of the piece may be put down a semitone, perhaps a reason why the original author thought it was in C-minor. Jaser 12345 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the second movement is in the key of E Major, which could be mistaken for C-Sharp Minor, but I have never heard of this piece being in the key of C-Sharp Minor. I do have the sheet music for this composition, and I am currently learning it, and everything that I have seen is certainly in C Minor. However, I can't say that the composer didn't origianlly intend for this work to be in C-Sharp Minor, but it seems unlikely. In the recording of this piece by the composer, it is in C Minor. I hope that I might have been of some assistance. Lunasspectos29 12:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Recordings are certainly no source to go by for what key a piece is in. The only way to check the key is to go to the score itself, which I have right in front of me (I have the Broude Bros. orchestral score, and I've also checked the Boosey & Hawkes and Kalmus editions, as well as the Koussevitsky edition of the two-piano version) and the score definitely says C minor in every instance. The opening key signature is three flats, confirmed by the tonic chord in measure 9. The last chord in the piece (penultimate measure) is C major. The middle movement does contain some C-sharp (albeit C-sharp major) but it opens in E major and ends on an E-major chord; it's pretty hard to argue E major for the Adagio.
Also, does anyone else feel the need to correct the bit in the Trivia section that says the concerto starts in F minor? Although it starts on an F-minor chord, by the ninth measure, C minor has clearly been established, and the first theme is presented in that key. maestro 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This image should clear it up. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually including the next chord would have cleared it up (and established the C-minor tonality). maestro 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulty of the Concerto

While this piece would escape myself and many other amateur pianists, the music would be definitely be accessible to the lowest rank of concert pianists (it is popular in competitions), and pales in comparisons with the Rach 3. The article makes much of the requirement to reach a diminished 12th. All the repetoire I've ever looked through, especially in arrangements and vocal scores frequently use the 12th, sometimes even with a bracket to indicate that the interval is not to be arpeggioed. I could play the opening 8 bars of the concerto with minor discomfort (the interior notes make it awkward, especially the F-C-Db-Ab) and very little practise. Also, the pianist famously receives little time in the spotlight, taking very little of the melodic weight. The first two movements (aside from a cadenza or two) are mostly just arpeggios. Unless there is a source for this statement I will remove it. --Alexs letterbox 11:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the piano concerto is not as difficult as perhaps the Rach 3, but calling the first and second movements 'mostly arpeggios' shows just how misunderstood you are of the piece. You say you can play the 8 bar opening 'with minor discomfort', but can you play it with the musicality required? Part of being able to play large intervals is not just getting the notes, but going on to play them perfectly and with the correct intonation every time. Not only that, but you have to sustain the large intervals. If you look again at the work, you'll see complex and difficult rhythms to master, such as 3 on 2, 10 on 4, 7,8,9,10 on 2. Having large hands means you can play the piece to what Rachmaninoff wants, not some strung together version full of ripples. As to what you said about the pianist taking little melodic weight, I'd agree with you slightly, but the piano has fantastic harmonies to play (take the serene clarinet and piano duet). The piano also develops the theme while the orchestra introduces it. The ending of the last movement is a great example, with the piano playing the tune throughout, finishing the piece. I reckon the source of the statement is from pianists. You can't have a source saying that the piece is difficult. Jaser 12345 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if you cannot source a statement about the difficulty, you cannot include the statement in Wikipedia as it represents a point of view (see WP:POV and WP:CITE. Difficulty is always going to be wooly to measure, and one certainly cannot do it by how difficult it is to play with musical meaning. One may say that the second movement of the Khachaturian piano concerto has an accompaniment that is more difficult than the solo part, but is obviously less musically significant. Does the musical significance make the solo part more technically difficult?

You point to the difficult rhythms (7,8,9,10 on 2, etc.). Learning how to subdivide beats into any number between one and ten is part of any serious musicians basic training. The best way to measure the difficulty is probably to compare it to other late-Romantic piano concertos, by which it pales in comparison with, say, Brahms and Tchaikovsky. My final point is that one cannot be encyclopaedic about the difficulty of the piece, unless it is really obviously out of the realms of most pianists (including professionals) such as the Rach 3. --Alexs letterbox 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well why not just simply remove and comments about difficulty/easiness altogether? If we can rewrite the article to become less orientated on difficulty, then I'd agree, if be it for the good of Wikipedia. Jaser 12345 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's definately playable by experienced amateurs. I'm 16 and I can play most of it. Perhaps it's not the dexterity of the pianist that is important, but rather the amount of beauty that he or she can bring to the piece that is the key point of its difficulty.
At 15 I'm learning the concerto right now. I'm on movement 2, by far the easiest, and have found that it is not the most difficult work I've looked at. It's similar to Edvard Grieg's in difficulty: although Allegro scherzando may escape that level. That said, I am not even thinking of approaching Rach 3 after this one... Alegoo92 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Rach 2 isn't even in the same ballpark as Grieg's Concerto. Grieg is considered to be an "easy" romantic concerto, while Rach 2 is disastrously difficult. Most of the things that sound difficult on Grieg you can hear easily, but it's hard to hear the difficult stuff in Rach 2. I'm 18 and I've played both concerti before.
I think this proves how subjective a term like "difficulty" is. I know my teacher says he could learn three Romantic piano concerti in the time it took him to learn one prelude and fugue from WTK. --Alexs letterbox 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Like Alex Letterbox says; this must be because of the subjectivity of the term 'difficult'. I've discovered that Allegro sherzando is extremely difficult, but I think that mvt. 2 is easier than Grieg's and Mvt. 1 is in the same ballpark. But that said, I have a much easier time with arpeggios and runs than chords: which play different roles in different movements. --Alegoo92 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR

The rather lengthy description of the concerto does not really serve the article. Does it really help the article to know that the piano plays a rhythm "which is primarily composed of tuplets that are sometimes 9, 8, 7, or 6 eighth notes per half-note"? The whole description is unreferenced and smells of amateur analysis. Some of the statements are almost patent nonsense, such as the description of the opening of the 2nd movement: "It may be considered an allusion to the beginning of the first movement—a series of slow chords marked crescendo, which leads into a slow adagio". If this opening bears a resembelance to anything, it would be the opening of the 2nd movement of Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony. If there is no protest, I will probably replace the entire section with a concise paragraph. --Alexs letterbox 10:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. To be honest I'm sad to see that the lengthy opening of the article was diminished, it's rather annoying that people need cites and references when they themselves have first hand experience with the work and know what they are talking about. For now since no one else seems opposed I'm going to remove the OR tag- and would prefer you not ruin the article. Alegoo92 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
First hand experience counts for nothing on Wikipedia. Unless you have published a paper (or otherwise) on the concerto, you cannot just use first hand experience as a source. Your statement that the concerto "is considered to be among the greatest works for piano ever composed" was removed because it is unverifiable. You say that "it's rather annoying that people need cites and references when they themselves have first hand experience with the work and know what they are talking about". I would love to try that on my Musicology lecturer when she challenges me about unsupported claims in my essays.
My most serious gripe is with the description of the concerto. Does one gain a broader understanding of the work by knowing that "The chords continue to grow with tension until eventually bursting into a torrent of rhythmic piano accompaniment to the main theme, which is primarily composed of tuplets that are sometimes 9, 8, 7, or 6 eighth notes per half-note". No listener is really going to care what values of tuplets are being used. The desrciption has no substance. The unnecessary detail in some sections is contrasted by the slang nature of others (the music picks up). It is of a standard that one would expect from a student's last minute programme notes; not an encyclopaedia.
I suggest you read the policies on Verifiability, Original Research and Neutral Point of View. --Alexs letterbox 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe they do. I also think it's important to note that it can be listed in the top famous concerti: even if I can't find a source for that. It's interesting and the type of information people look for on Wikipedia.. not what country it was written in and the first performance. I'll admit saying that its among the greatest is purely opinion: but its agreed upon by musical experts. How can that important info get into Wikipedia uncited? --Alegoo92 01:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alegoo92. Unfortunately uncited information cannot go into Wikipedia. The three core policies of Wikipedia: Verifiability, Original Research and Neutral Point of View, together ensure that only information that has been published in reliable sources can go into articles here. However, all is not lost. If, as you say, it is "agreed upon by musical experts" that this is among the greatest concertos, then one of those experts has probably put that opinion into writing. Try looking at websites, books (Google book search is a great resource), CD liner notes, etc. Once you find this opinion you can then refer to it in the article. The same goes for much of the other material that has been challenged in this article. We all appreciate your enthusiasm for the project: however please try to work within the parameters that the Wikipedia community has established. Thanks! Grover cleveland 03:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I wish it weren't necessary, I'd like to put in my agreement with User:Alexs letterbox and User:Grover cleveland. Cleaning up unverifiable material, and citing sources for everything else, is among the most important things we should be doing to Wikipedia these days, because it's the one thing that most drastically decreases its value as a resource. WP:V and WP:OR really shouldn't be questioned, as they now and then are for some reason. If you don't like them, you're in the wrong place. EldKatt (Talk) 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removed list of pianists who have recorded the concerto

Although a complete, referenced discography would definitely be a worthy addition to the article, this material in the article was unreferenced and consisted of an arbitrary selection from among the numerous artists who have recorded the concerto. (Arkivmusic currently lists more than 60 pianists whose recordings are currently on sale: there are no doubt as many more who are out of print). Grover cleveland 08:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed list of figure skaters who have used the music for their routines

It was unreferenced. Whether it is really relevant to the subject of this article is also questionable.Grover cleveland 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)