Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner VAR.XVIII

Has anyone got this off pat ?... VAR.XVIII of the Rachmaninoff Rapsodie on a Theme of Paganini Opus 43? (Db Major)

The familiar theme holds ones attention to be able to master the first 12 measures ... but then the sight-reading traffic gets a bit intense with lots of clef changes and overlapping chords.

Any comment?

Here are the first 9 measures.

web page

What's the question?

It's not a particularly difficult variation; playing through it a few times should get it into the fingers of most proficient pianists.

Regards,

Hi BruceD,
Your nonchallance is disarming ... it will be interesting to hear how many others regard Rach’s Rapsodie VAR.XVIII (post m12)
as "not a particularly difficult variation".

It is an incredibly difficult variation. Probably the hardest measures that Rachmaninov ever wrote... and you know the story, even Rachmaninov himself couldn't play them. In fact, that variation is the only reason why I'm too scared to play the whole Rhapsody. I'm having enough trouble lately with Chopin Op. 10 No. 1... a piece of cake in comparison!

PJ's joking aside, I think Rachmaninov actually did have problems playing this variation even though it is probably the easiest part of the piece. Someone(can't remember who) offered him a Creme de menth before the concert and he played the piece perfectly. Rachmaninov proceded to write "Creme de menth" on the score next to this variation and always had this drink backstage before performing this work.

It's not a particularly difficult variation.

Even I had no trouble at all playing the lower (labeled II) set of staffs in the excerpt posted by btb.

Love to hear your recording, Monica.

Perhaps for Recital 10?


Mel

It's not one of the difficult ones. I always thought Variation 15 was more of a finger twister.

It's not a difficult variations at all, just chords that fit under the hands nicely.

As we first heard from George Santayana :

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Well said...

The creme de menth was supposedly for the jumps at the beginning of the final variation. I took a shot of creme de menth with a friend of mine in the orchestra before I played it this past year, and by God I hit every one of those jumps. I'm never performing this piece again without taking a couple shots first

pianojerome, I must disagree. Everyone knows that the hardest passage ever written by Rachmaninov is the third variation of the Paganini Rhapsody! I mean, to be able to play such a frantic solo piano part, so full of wide leaps and treacherous chords and nimble runs -- surely only the most able of virtuosi could tackle it. And as everyone knows, even if one may be able to play the notes, the variation will never have enough aching or enough longing or enough swooning. In other words, the few (if any) who can play the notes of the solo piano part of this variation cannot possibly play them musically. After all, that is one of the immutable laws of the universe, is it not?

Here is the two-piano score of the entire work. Flip to the third variation to see the horror, the horror!

Surely the third variation of the Paganini Rhapsody deserves its own thread! Surely the devil himself resides in the solo piano part of this very variation, wearing a tiger suit, daring the foolish to hunt him down. And surely it is well-nigh impossible to sight-read the solo piano part of this variation! A well known virtuoso who regularly eats the Busoni Concerto and the Alkan Etudes for breakfast is terrified by variation three, and has admitted to not being able to sight-read it. What hope then do we mere mortals have?

Coming soon to btbTV: Our Lord and Saviour enlightens us on the pianistic difficulties of "Heart and Soul."

I wanted to post in this thread earlier, but when I looked at the score linked above I had a series of minor strokes for even attempting to read the notes. I lost all motor function when there was a clef change. I'm just happy to be alive. Thanks for nothing, Rachmaninoff.

...Huh?

(assuming you guys are joking)
.
.
.
.
.
.
(I mean come on...)

Good point, but let's see where this goes first.

Thanks for your good sense PJ ... the high-flown flatulance of some have me reaching for Winston Churchill’s politically correct use of the term "terminological inexactitude".

Glad to hear that Rachmaninoff himself needed a stiff medicinal bracer before tackling the minefield of VAR.XVIII.

But if you read a few posts after mine you'll see I had the wrong variation.

My pleasure. Now where's that creme de menthe...