Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
If you'll allow me to divert the attention a bit, Rachmaninoff has greater credentials and had greater success, both as a pianist and composer, compared with Scriabin or Medtner.. by pretty much any measure. All three are missing something, though, compared with the masters Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and later Shostakovich. I suppose that I am predisposed to prefer the composers who respected and understood the contributions of the Western composers, well enough to ultimately improve on them. The "Russian Romantics" were a little too insular and self-absorbed for my taste, though the next guy may have exactly the opposite opinion and admire their individuality.
The funny thing is: The Group of the Five (Cuj, Balakirev, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakow and Borodin) wanted to make "real" Russian music, and distance themselves from Tschaikowsky. Whether Rachmaninoff is more "Russian" than the Five is open for debate.
As for me, I prefer Shostakovich to Rachmaninoff by far. As for Scriabin... A few months ago I was at a concert with the Cello concerto by Scriabin, and a Symphony by Rachmaninoff (the 3rd or 4th, I don't remember; the one he wrote while being in the USA). And I liked the Rachmaninoff better, because it sounded more like Shostakovich, while the Scriabin sounded a bit too late-romantic for my taste.
This has nothing to do with which hand to use where while playing a prelude, but it's fun discussing music anyway. And since the spin-off thread about innovation and conservatism was locked, I might as well post it here.
My grand piano is a Yamaha C2 SG. My other Yamaha is an XMAX 300.
A few months ago I was at a concert with the Cello concerto by Scriabin, and a Symphony by Rachmaninoff (the 3rd or 4th, I don't remember; the one he wrote while being in the USA).
He didn't write a 4th; it must have been the 3rd, in A minor. Glorious music.
But you see the point is that I don't care to persuade anyone. I'm not passionate at all for this (in fact I did call it a silly debate to begin with. If you were a bit careful you'd have noticed that).
Both contain works of mine. Check, have a listen and see if they all feel the same... :-/
But it IS up to you in the end. I offered an idea and not much else (and something that Polyphonist was eager to discuss...).
I tried one of your websites and the page didn't load. Anyway, we're not discussing your music, we're discussing that of Rachmaninoff, Medtner, and Scriabin. You claim that the music of Rachmaninoff is inferior to that of Scriabin because Rachmaninoff was a conservative and refused to be swept up in the wave of atonality that permeated the first half of the twentieth century and which consumed Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Scriabin. Well, Bach lived during the beginning of the Classical reform movement. Yet he continued to write in the High Baroque way, using his distinctive mixture of the German, Italian, and French styles. Rachmaninoff is very similar in this respect - he remained with the harmonic language and sonority of Late Romanticism, while Scriabin went on to compose vast quantities of atonal music. So, using your criteria, Scarlatti should be superior to Bach.
(the 3rd or 4th, I don't remember; the one he wrote while being in the USA).
He only composed three and if memory serves me correctly he didn't compose any of them in the U.S. The third was premiered in the U.S., however.
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
He didn't write a 4th; it must have been the 3rd, in A minor. Glorious music.
I just did an Internet search. Rachmaninoff wrote his third symphony in 1935-36; but made revisions to it in 1938. I guess I must have read in the program text that he made the revisions in the USA, or that the premiere was in the USA. Anyway, it was a symphony that he wrote while being homesick.
But he still is no Shostakovich. One concert I attended this year was with a piano concerto by Rachmaninoff (the second; the one that was used for "All by myself"), and Shostakovich's 10th symphony. I preferred the latter.
But tastes and colors are not open for debate.
My grand piano is a Yamaha C2 SG. My other Yamaha is an XMAX 300.
Symphonic Dances orchestral suite - 3 movements - is sometimes mistakenly referred to as his 4th symphony. It was completed in the USA late in the composer's career. Evidence suggests it was actually meant to be a ballet but never quite got there. An interesting work nonetheless. In tandem with his Rhapsody it seems to reveal an incipient progression into modernism.
Symphonic Dances orchestral suite - 3 movements - is sometimes mistakenly referred to as his 4th symphony. It was completed in the USA late in the composer's career. Evidence suggests it was actually meant to be a ballet but never quite got there. An interesting work nonetheless. In tandem with his Rhapsody it seems to reveal an incipient progression into modernism.
I still think of it as a Russian Romantic work, and I'm glad Rachmaninoff never got sucked into writing modern music.
Symphonic Dances orchestral suite - 3 movements - is sometimes mistakenly referred to as his 4th symphony. It was completed in the USA late in the composer's career. Evidence suggests it was actually meant to be a ballet but never quite got there. An interesting work nonetheless. In tandem with his Rhapsody it seems to reveal an incipient progression into modernism.
I still think of it as a Russian Romantic work, and I'm glad Rachmaninoff never got sucked into writing modern music.
