Composer Battle, Round 2: Rachmaninoff vs. Scriabin

[IcedNote]

Wassup?



Yeah, yeah...I know we have the luxury of liking BOTH of them. Yeah, yeah...I know music, in this sense, shouldn't be a contest.

HOWEVER...our "Schumann vs. Schubert" debate led to many interesting statements about the two great composers. I picked these two because their musical outputs were quite similiar: both favored the piano but dabbled in other settings.

So with that being said...

In a very close finish, I'm taking Scriabin. What an evolution over the course of his career! Simply look at his early preludes and his late preludes if you don't know what I'm talking about. Such growth in rhythm, melody, form, and, most strikingly, harmony. He manages to take the listener so far away from home without making them forget where their home truly is. That's extraordinary!

And have you heard Prometheus? Genius! I hope that some day I will be able to see it performed with the lights as it was intended! And his symphonies...amazing!

Alright, I know Rachmaninoff is the easy pick, right? After all, he wrote perhaps the second most famous piano concerto of all time (behind Tchaikovsky, of course). And, yes, I agree that "Vespers" is one of the great masterpieces of choral music. But hey, I said this was a close call!

Scriabin 97, Rachmaninoff 93

Prove me wrong!

-G

[Corlyss_D]

Rach's gift for melody strikes me as different from Scriabin's. There's always a darkness in Rach that doesn't seem to in Scriabin's. I've been impressed by many Rach compositions, often with their spookiness, but Scriabin has made me weep, much like Brahms does. Of course Rach is greater on probably any standard you care to use.

[Ralph]

Rachmaninoff is more romantic and he consistently outsells Scriabin at Tower. But my moods match Scriabin's more closely.

[living_stradivarius]

Time for me to go listen to some more Scriabin. I voted for Rach, but only because I've listened to him more.

[Harvested Sorrow]

I voted for Rach with an odd feeling that I'm voting for the underdog again.

[Corlyss_D]

Time for me to go listen to some more Scriabin. I voted for Rach, but only because I've listened to him more.

Try the Demidenko recording of the piano concerto on Hyperion. You can get it for $7 from Berkshire. It's paired with a boffo performance of Tchaikovsky's 1st.

[diegobueno]

Both Scriabin and Rachmaninoff have a tendency to write what I call "head-banging" music for the piano, that is music which attempts to create a rich, orchestral texture from the piano through reiterated chords and constant arpeggiated left-hand figures. Whenever I hear this kind of music I think "OK, guys, the piano is not an orchestra, get used to it." Scriabin does this less often, probably because he didn't have the strength in his hands that Rach did. Scriabin's later miniatures favor delicate, crystaline sounds, and his unique harmonic language makes the music fascinating.

In the realm of orchestral music, I think Rach comes out ahead. Prometheus is marvelous, and there's nothing else in music like it (except for Nemtin's monstrosity, the first part of which is all you need to ever hear). The three Rach symphonies plus the Symphonic Dances are more consistently solid. The Symphonic Dances are superbly orchestrated, with not a whiff of gratuitous doubling.

[RebLem]

Rachmaninoff here, though at least as much for political as aesthetic reasons. Scriabin, some have said, others denied, was the uncle of Vyacheslav Molotov, the Stalin-era Soviet politician who lived an amazing 96 years (1890-1986), into the Gorbachev era.

OTOH, the Soviets never quite figured out what they wanted to do about Rachmaninoff. On the one hand, his music was rooted in the Russian soul, and in many ways exemlefied the Soviet ideal, and yet he was a White Russian expatriate aristocrat who despised the Soviet regime. He made them squirm, and just thinking about it is fun.

If truth be known, I have never been a big fan of either composer. Much of Rachmaninoff seems to me floridly gauche, the musical analog to a Corinthian column. Some of his sparer works, like the Symphonic Dances and his ecclesiastical music, however, please me more.

I have heard Scriabin's symphonies, and I have Ruth Laredo's cycle of his solo piano works, but somehow, he leaves me cold. He doesn't seem to have much blood in his veins.

[greymouse]

I voted for Rachmaninov. It was tough; I felt bad not going for Scriabin because I think he had very good musical ideas.

I think Rach has a more technically assured execution though. He is one of the great masters of melancholy. Clear orchestration. His symphonies are underrated. The Isle of the Dead is nice.

[Heck148]

Clear orchestration. His symphonies are underrated.

Rachmaninoff - clear orchestration?? yikes!!

Rach-y is one of the worst orchestrators ever - way too thick heavy and muddy. he insists on keeping each instrment in its mid-range or lower mid-range consistently. this produces a very thick murky sound.

very frustrating to play....

[daycart]

I love both, but put Scriabin first. I find his early Chopin-esque stuff amazingly good: the Op. 11 preludes, for example. And the later music, while perhaps lacking some in variety has almost unmatched attention to piano sound.
For me, their orchestral music is about equal, but I have to admit that S's early piano concerto compares with the R1 and R4, not the R2,3.

[paulb]

I like Rachmaninov's Vespers, 1st pc, 4th pc. Though I know many do not care for his 4th.
The 2,3 pc's are abit too long.
Rach was an important part of my newbie days back 30 yrs ago.
Scriabin is good for one or 2 listens. I' don;t believe I own even 1 Scriabin cd.

[anasazi]

I'm afraid not much contest for my tastes. Scriabin never fails to leave me uninterested or bored while Rachmaninoff almost never bores me.

[Corlyss_D]

this produces a very thick murky sound.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Works well for things like Symphonic Dances but sometimes one wishes for a Ravel or Rimsky Korsakov to come in and clean things up a bit.

[IcedNote]

Well, it looks like y'all are certainly "proving me wrong"!!



-G

[Jack Kelso]

I had to laugh at IcedNote's "dabbled in other settings", in reference to Schubert and Schumann. Hey---didn't Wagner dabble in opera and Brahms in symphonies...?!

Rachmaninoff and Scriabin were the two most famous pupils of Tanejev; Scriabin, he reported, was the most ambitious---Rachmaninoff the laziest.

I like both....but Rachmaninoff "moves" me more on occasion (e.g., the Second Symphony, 2nd Piano Concerto), Scriabin's music I admire more for its technique and originality.

Hmm....hard to choose, but I find Scriabin more "fascinating".

Okay----my vote goes to Scriabin....

Jack

[paulb]

After being a big fan of Rach in my newboie yrs, 20 yrs ago.
My compact cd player ran out of batteries in the car so I I flipped on classical radio ...Rach's 2nd pc was on, , I immediately changed the channel to whatever.
Didn't wish to destroy the listenings of Berg's Chamber Concerto I had been listening to.
IOW I do not miss any Rach, except the Vespers once a year, the 1st pc once a year.

[IcedNote]

I had to laugh at IcedNote's "dabbled in other settings", in reference to Schubert and Schumann. Hey---didn't Wagner dabble in opera and Brahms in symphonies...?!

Haha! No, no! I meant that about Scriabin and Rach!!

-G

[ch1525]

Rachmaninoff and Scriabin were the two most famous pupils of Tanejev; Scriabin, he reported, was the most ambitious---Rachmaninoff the laziest.

I really thought it was the other way around. When I was writing my term paper on Rachy, I remember reading about Rachmaninoff and Scriabin being classmates and Scriabin was thrown out of a class that I'm pretty sure was taught by Tanayev. Anyone else know of what I'm talking about?

Rachmaninoff supposedly developed a much more disciplined work ethic when he lived and studied with Nikolay Zverev. Before that, though, he was pretty lazy in terms of studies.

[Heck148]

this produces a very thick murky sound.

I'm inclined to agree with you......one wishes for a Ravel or Rimsky Korsakov to come in and clean things up a bit.

or a Stravinsky or Shostakovich....

[ch1525]

or a Stravinsky or Shostakovich....

Stravinsky can keep his Neoclassical hands off of my favorite Rachmaninoff works!!!!!!!!

[Heck148]

or a Stravinsky or Shostakovich....

Stravinsky can keep his Neoclassical hands off of my favorite Rachmaninoff works

but think how much better they'd sound if you could actually hear the inner parts, via a more skillful, transparent orchestration!!

[anasazi]

or a Stravinsky or Shostakovich....

Stravinsky can keep his Neoclassical hands off of my favorite Rachmaninoff works

but think how much better they'd sound if you could actually hear the inner parts, via a more skillful, transparent orchestration!!

But would it still be Rachmaninoff? I don't really think Rach was quite so terrible an orchestrator. No, he was not a Ravel. But I feel that his own orchestratons served his music admirably. I think many or most of his orchestral pieces were intended to sound the way that they did. I think his music may require a bit more care from orchestra and conductor to come out well though.

[Jack Kelso]

or a Stravinsky or Shostakovich....

Stravinsky can keep his Neoclassical hands off of my favorite Rachmaninoff works

but think how much better they'd sound if you could actually hear the inner parts, via a more skillful, transparent orchestration!!

But would it still be Rachmaninoff? I don't really think Rach was quite so terrible an orchestrator. No, he was not a Ravel. But I feel that his own orchestratons served his music admirably. I think many or most of his orchestral pieces were intended to sound the way that they did. I think his music may require a bit more care from orchestra and conductor to come out well though.

Agreed, who would Rachmaninoff be if it weren't for his thick, melancholic and turgid orchestration? He has his own "sound", and like all masters his expresses something that no other composer can.....in quite the same manner.

Jack

[Heck148]

But I feel that his own orchestratons served his music admirably. I think many or most of his orchestral pieces were intended to sound the way that they did.

then his objectives were severely flawed, because his thick muddy orchestration consistently obscures inner lines, and often interesting inside voices....it's like saying - he intentionally screws it up, and that is his genius, that he can slop up his own potentially good ideas!!

the constant over-orchestrating, "everybody must play at all times", consistently in the thick middle range, approach to orchestration is really deficient, a real flaw in this composer's technique...

I think his music may require a bit more care from orchestra and conductor to come out well though.

even that is not sufficient to cure the flaws of the murky, heavy, overly thick orchestration...there are simply too many parts that "don't work". it is very frustrating to perform...

[anasazi]

There are particular works where Rach's orchestration does not help his music, I would agree.

But then there are other times when his orchestration is as light as a feather. For example, the second movement of piano concerto #2. How can anyone thing that murky?

Pretty much piano and clarinet, with some strings supporting. Lovely duet but so many times I have heard it played, either without a clarinetist who could cover the part, or else the recording engineer dialed him out. But in either case, you could not blame the orchestration. Pretty simple.

I would actually place Rachmaninoff ahead of a whole lot of other, often more famous composers, in orchestration. Of course, just the balance of piano and orchestra has tortured composers, even Beethoven at times.

Certainly a better orchestrator than perhaps Chopin, Schumann, maybe even Brahms. Franck? better. Mussorgsky? better.

Of course, it IS more difficult to orchestrate if you choose instruments in much the same range. But should a piece of music be thought of as only an excercise in orchestration? What if the mood of the piece, or ideas in a composers head lead him to a certain point of view? Perhaps piccolos, or D trumpets don't suit the emotion of the work?

[Harvested Sorrow]

Certainly a better orchestrator than perhaps Chopin, Schumann, maybe even Brahms.

I fear that you may have just opened up one hell of a can of worms.

[anasazi]

Certainly a better orchestrator than perhaps Chopin, Schumann, maybe even Brahms.

I fear that you may have just opened up one hell of a can of worms.

hehe, OK, I'll strike Brahms from my list. Put the lid back on the can!

[ch1525]

There are particular works where Rach's orchestration does not help his music, I would agree.

But then there are other times when his orchestration is as light as a feather. For example, the second movement of piano concerto #2. How can anyone thing that murky?

Pretty much piano and clarinet, with some strings supporting. Lovely duet but so many times I have heard it played, either without a clarinetist who could cover the part, or else the recording engineer dialed him out. But in either case, you could not blame the orchestration. Pretty simple.

I would actually place Rachmaninoff ahead of a whole lot of other, often more famous composers, in orchestration. Of course, just the balance of piano and orchestra has tortured composers, even Beethoven at times.

Certainly a better orchestrator than perhaps Chopin, Schumann, maybe even Brahms. Franck? better. Mussorgsky? better.

Of course, it IS more difficult to orchestrate if you choose instruments in much the same range. But should a piece of music be thought of as only an excercise in orchestration? What if the mood of the piece, or ideas in a composers head lead him to a certain point of view? Perhaps piccolos, or D trumpets don't suit the emotion of the work?

Well said!!!

[Jack Kelso]

Certainly a better orchestrator than perhaps Chopin, Schumann, maybe even Brahms. Franck? better. Mussorgsky? better.

Well, you might as well throw in Schubert, too.

What's this "can of worms" thing? Brahms is usually treated as though he were watching us with a rude grimace from above. His music can be criticized as well as that of anyone else.

Orchestration is not some pure, objective quality that is either "good" or "bad". Bruckner's orchestration wouldn't have helped Brahms' music, nor would Berlioz' type of instrumentation have helped Schumann's symphonies (Mahler's well-meaning but wrong-headed attempts with the latter are an excellent example, as was Wagner's unfulfilled ambition to re-orchestrate the Beethoven symphonies).

The type of material (i.e. Rachmaninoff's) that can profit by thick orchestration must be of an intense, non-theatrical expression. Like Schubert, Schumann and Brahms before him, Rachmaninoff revels in the mysterious density of lugubriousness to an even greater extent. No thin-lined Mendelssohnian or Lisztian orchestration for them. And, although Rachmaninoff can be seen as the successor to Tschaikowsky, the latter's orchestration (as fine as it is!) would hardly do for Rachmaninoff's expressive palate.

If one examines the orchestration technique of Joachim Raff, one notes that everything is done just right: nothing is out of place, neither too thick or too thin, no loss of balance, no awkwardness in the writing for various instruments in combination, etc. BUT.....what is missing is that absolute individuality that Schumann, Brahms and Rachmaninoff have! And that is worth far, far more than being able to perform school-book orchestration sans originality.

Thus, Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony sounds just fine to me.

Jack

[Heck148]

Of course, it IS more difficult to orchestrate if you choose instruments in much the same range..... Perhaps piccolos, or D trumpets don't suit the emotion of the work?

the problem is, Rachmaninoff might use piccolos and D trumpets, then write them all in their middle range, where the characteristic brilliance is completely nullified, and their advantages undone....
this is not to say that instruments cannot be used most effectively in their "uncharacteristic" ranges - the true masters of orchestration - Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Ravel, etc, do it all the time - but they maintain a clear enough texture so that the wonderful effects come thru...

But should a piece of music be thought of as only an excercise in orchestration? What if the mood of the piece, or ideas in a composers head lead him to a certain point of view?

no, orchestration is basically a technique [a vital one] thru which the composer expresses his ideas...the orchestration, however, should highlight, encourage, magnify the ideas - not obscure them by overly thick texture...

[Jack Kelso]

...orchestration is basically a technique [a vital one] thru which the composer expresses his ideas...the orchestration, however, should highlight, encourage, magnify the ideas - not obscure them by overly thick texture...

The art of orchestration is a tool, like rhythm, counterpoint or harmony. Each master has set his/her own stamp of individuality upon it. Clearly, Hindemith's is different than Stravinsky's or Debussy's.....and so on.....

The same composer also can sound different in other works (e.g., in Schumann's "Das Paradies und die Peri" oratorio he uses an oriental-like instrumentation, considerably thinner than usual).

(See my previous note.)

Jack

[anasazi]

[quote="Heck148
no, orchestration is basically a technique [a vital one] thru which the composer expresses his ideas...the orchestration, however, should highlight, encourage, magnify the ideas - not obscure them by overly thick texture...[/quote]

But you don't consider that since so much of Rachmaninoff's music seems to express such dark feelings (with notable exceptions), that the dense lower ranges of the strings work better than, say the bright piccolos of Prokoviev's Lt. Kije (as an example)? How would you orchestrate a deep longing for home yourself?

Also, what would be the point of hearing every line, if every line were not playing a more contrapuntal part, where it might have interest? It seems that quite a bit of Rach's music was from a pianist who composed them to give himself something to perform. Considering that he had no regular orchestra of his own, not being a conductor or opera director, and so had fewer chances to try things out, so to speak, I find it amazing that his orchestration is as good as it is. Excellent in fact in some works, such as the Pagannini Rhapsody.

[Jack Kelso]

[quote="Heck148
no, orchestration is basically a technique [a vital one] thru which the composer expresses his ideas...the orchestration, however, should highlight, encourage, magnify the ideas - not obscure them by overly thick texture...

But you don't consider that since so much of Rachmaninoff's music seems to express such dark feelings (with notable exceptions), that the dense lower ranges of the strings work better than, say the bright piccolos of Prokoviev's Lt. Kije (as an example)? How would you orchestrate a deep longing for home yourself?

Also, what would be the point of hearing every line, if every line were not playing a more contrapuntal part, where it might have interest? It seems that quite a bit of Rach's music was from a pianist who composed them to give himself something to perform. Considering that he had no regular orchestra of his own, not being a conductor or opera director, and so had fewer chances to try things out, so to speak, I find it amazing that his orchestration is as good as it is. Excellent in fact in some works, such as the Pagannini Rhapsody.[/quote]

Yes, Anasazi---this is the point I've been making. Orchestration must fit the material at hand as well as the mood.

Jack

[Heck148]

But you don't consider that since so much of Rachmaninoff's music seems to express such dark feelings (with notable exceptions), that the dense lower ranges of the strings work better

other composers achieve this with much more effectiveness and clarity, Shostakovich and Wagner spring to mind in this regard...

Also, what would be the point of hearing every line, if every line were not playing a more contrapuntal part, where it might have interest?

if a line is of little or no interest, why is it in there at all?? My problem with Rach-y's orchestration is that it is so thick that it often obscures interesting inside lines. there is so much busy-work going on, in the instrumental mid-range, that these crucial parts are covered. his orchestration causes him to get in his own way....

Excellent in fact in some works, such as the Pagannini Rhapsody.

yes. a [relative] bright spot, probably his best work....

[diegobueno]

Heck,

You obviously know nothing about Rach's Symphonic Dances. No thick orchestration there. You can look right down the page: no doubling, no extraneous filler. Sounds great, too.

[Heck148]

Heck,

You obviously know nothing about Rach's Symphonic Dances. No thick orchestration there. You can look right down the page: no doubling, no extraneous filler. Sounds great, too.

I've never cared much for that piece - so I haven't spent much time listening to it.

the Pag Vars is not orchestrated too badly. it is probably his most successful work.

[anasazi]

if a line is of little or no interest, why is it in there at all?? My problem with Rach-y's orchestration is that it is so thick that it often obscures interesting inside lines. there is so much busy-work going on, in the instrumental mid-range, that these crucial parts are covered. his orchestration causes him to get in his own way....

In non-polyphonic compositions, mostimes, a 'cello or viola or trombone part is just filling in the harmony. It is of interest, but you don't have to hear it as a solo part for it to have done it's job.

When you are talking about busy parts in the middle ranges, I am kind of wondering if you are thinking of the very busy piano parts in some of the concertos?

[Heck148]

In non-polyphonic compositions, mostimes, a 'cello or viola or trombone part is just filling in the harmony.

with rach-y there is always plenty of this "filler'. but additionally, many times these inner parts are of melodic interest, contain primary themes or motifs, or are important counter-melodies...
the only way to project these thru the ultra-heavy fabric is to blast them out at fortissimo, molto marcato which is hardly a desirable musical approach.
A violinist friend of mine put it very cogently, in reference to playing Rach Sym #2 -
<there are 100 million notes in the violin part of this symphony, and the audience will never hear about 99% of them!!>

[ch1525]

<there are 100 million notes in the violin part of this symphony, and the audience will never hear about 99% of them!!>

But it's a Symphony, not a piece for Solo Violin! The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

[Heck148]

<there are 100 million notes in the violin part of this symphony, and the audience will never hear about 99% of them!!>

But it's a Symphony, not a piece for Solo Violin! The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

of course, but why write such elaborate, verbose, involved parts when they will simply be indistinguishable, inaudibly lost in the thick, muddy wash of sound....

all it does is create acoustical clutter, and obscure other possibly interesting parts

[paulb]

What Heck's friend is refering to is that many of the "nuances', if that word can be applied to most of Rach's music, subilities (yes thats a better word) in the violins is lost when the big brass hits and stays around.
This loss of spectatular violin and viola parts are lost to the average listener in many works from many composers, due to bold brass, big wind sections.
Interesting that I love Berg's chamber/voice solo/small chorus so much as he seemed to put more attention into details in small works, nothing with big brass, big winds. All of his instrumention is heard.
So for me there's more interest in say a collection of leider from Berg than en entire long sym from Mahler. Berg's economy opposed to Mahler's volume.

[paulb]

<there are 100 million notes in the violin part of this symphony, and the audience will never hear about 99% of them!!>

But it's a Symphony, not a piece for Solo Violin! The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

of course, but why write such elaborate, verbose, involved parts when they will simply be indistinguishable, inaudibly lost in the thick, muddy wash of sound....

all it does is create acoustical clutter, and obscure other possibly interesting parts

Rach is especially notorious in this neglect for allowing the more interesting piano notes to come through instead of allowing the brass, too often, to drown out the piano. Its a shame he wrote such beautiful passages which just can't be heard among the thick of things when the orch is full throttle.

[Heck148]

What Heck's friend is refering to is that many of the "nuances', if that word can be applied to most of Rach's music, subilities (yes thats a better word) in the violins is lost when the big brass hits and stays around.

except it isn't the brass that covers trhe sound - it's the overly thick low mid-range string/wind sonority, that creates all the murk...I wish he would occasionally write some brilliant brass parts, it would clean up the muck.
also, Rach has a real weakess for writing thick, rapid, intricate melodic stuff and orchestrating it way too heavily - ie- the opening of the finale of the 2nd symphony. gawd, what a mess...all the low instruments are madly scrubbing away at this rather fast, intricate line, and no matter who is playing it, it comes out muddy and indistinguishable. it is simply not well scored.

This loss of spectatular violin and viola parts are lost to the average listener in many works from many composers, due to bold brass, big wind sections.

but masters like Mahler, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Wagner, etc, can write huge, loud brass sonorities and still maintain a very clear texture. Mahler and Shostakovich excel at this...
ie - in Mahler Sym #9, even at the loudest places, the clarity is remarkable, every line can be heard, if the execution is good.

[Heck148]

Rach is especially notorious in this neglect for allowing the more interesting piano notes to come through instead of allowing the brass, too often, to drown out the piano.

except it's usually not the brass. Rach-y's brass writing is pretty staid, uninteresting...he usually has way too much bass and mid-range glop going on constantly, which obscures the quieter lines..it's too bad, because there are some very interesting inside parts.

[paulb]

Heck thanks for putting in ffocus what I was trying to say. Yes thats it.
In the 4th pc there is a cresendo of the piano with the orchestra and raely can the piano makes its voice heard above the orch. I'm not compalining as its a very beautiful passage, there in the 1st movement.
Not sure why but not many like his 4pc. I think they consider it second rate, his 'hollywood era", stuff that "Rimsky Korsakov could have written".
I'm a sucker for beautiful sweeping passages. Provided its within limits, which the 2,3 pc's are far too long winded to keep me interested.
The 1st is my fav, many agree, and then the 4th.