Are you familiar with "The Bells"? Not performed very often but Rachmaninov at his best - extraordinary work.

I owned that way back, it was on vinyl! Love it. What are you listening to these days. Have you heard of Esa Peka Salonen? He is a composer, he writes in a very linear fashion, allowing the music to organically grow and guide where the piece feels it needs to go. Really beautiful, a kind of enigmatic nature about it. Sometimes almost scary. The kind of mood that the rites of spring can conjure.

+cameronpaul It was Rachmaninoff's favorite work among all of his compositions. But it never impressed me, and I have tried to like it. I have no answer. But regarding the work at hand, I consider it the greatest "tone poem" ever composed.

+Milton Moore, agree with you about "The Bells". But you, know, I felt the same way about most of Rakhmaninov's pieces until I heard them in Pletnev's rendition.Actually it's a composer which is very hard to play .Cz on the one hand you must be very Russian by spirit ( this permanent feeling of anxiety , when all the time you are about to cry , even in the joyful moments of life . And you can't really explain why). And at the same time , your playing must be very laconic and rigorous , like Catholic monk, singing "Dies irae". I think Pletnev is one of the few intepreters ( if not the only ) who combines them both.

Absolutely! I recognize my feelings in your words. Cannot get through it without tears, especially in conjunction with the painting by Arnold Böcklin. There is a movie called "Betrayal" (2012) where this music is played when the events take place in or by a hotel which actually looks like the Isle on that painting! Here is a link to the trailer: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fMBhoaV71dTFh3U.html

Yes but the sound mix sucks completely. At the end we hear almost nothing even with the volume at max. All forte fortissimo effects are killed

If you liked this piece, I would suggest you to try listening to some other works by Rachmaninoff, the Isle of the Dead is the first piece i've heard from him, and I am now a specialist of this composer. If you like orchestral music like this one, I would say try his second symphony (Op. 27) or first symphony (Op. 13) depending on if you prefere romantic or more dark. If you prefere piano works, his first suite (Op. 5) is a good introduction. But in all case please listen to his second piano concerto (Op. 18), it's a timeless classic, even rated the best piece of classical music ever almost every year.

This little played work of Rach would be a fiiting tribute to victims of Covid19

@@harolcemert Please don't post that propaganda here.

@@folksurvival i didnt post it

@@harolcemert Please don't be dishonest.

@@folksurvival Ah yes, my friend's parents and elder brother died, this is propaganda.

In un sogno.

Well I wouldn't be so critical , in not so few works of him you feel it's too much and I guess Rakhmaninov knew it himself . Remember 2 versions of 2nd sonata (or 3 of 4th concert ) , you will notice it's significantly reduced in its last version. I think that's exactly what saved it from being neglected. I'm not familiar with score but I guess here he cut maybe a couple of bars ,no more, and when listening you still feel incredible perfection of shape.

Are you kidding??? [Шутите ли вы???] 1) Rakhmáñinov did NOT like making cuts at all - his quote regarding them was that every bar cut was (my paraphrase) "a drop of blood taken out of me". Simultaneously, _he felt heavily pressured by the opinions of his colleagues, especially whilst he was in the last 25 years of his life._ *In fact, the period 1900-1970* (especially 1920-70) *was an anti-Romantic time* where his music (as well as that of Chaykóvskiy - in addition to Elgar, Richard Strauß and even Puccini) was basically DESPISED by the "intellectual élite", who didn't LIKE emotionalism and wanted to push everything back to a non-Romantic time (as a general reaction against the entire 19th-century). 2) _This version is HEAVILY cut_ (50 bars so far, more than what even Rakhmáñinov himself tolerated and did - against his will!!!), with all the cuts done in the first half of the piece (timing-wise, before the "farewell-to-life" section in E-flat, as if Pljetñóv were saying "let's just get over there ASAP, this part isn't worth it"!!!), past the point where entire passages (not merely repeated bars) get omitted and the actual substance of the piece is harmed. It's in essence as if the conductor is putting himself above the composer relative to his wishes, saying to him in essence "you don't / didn't truly know how to write music!!!!" That kind of what's basically CONTEMPT for the composer (and in line with what I've written under point #1) is an absolute TURN-OFF to me in addition to undoing the trend that has taken place over these past 50 years when conductors like Prévin and Ashkenázy were pushing for all of this music to be performed *_UNCUT_* , allowing the full structural buildup of the work to take place unhindered. [If you want to check out the (full-) score, IMSLP has it available on-line: there you can examine it all you like and verify all I've written here.] This performance consequently loses not one but two stars out of 5 (3/5). NOT recommended - go with Ashkenázy's reading with the Royal Concertgebouw of Amsterdam. There is no question there that everything fits *perfectly* : nothing feels rushed, every gesture is completely at home and proves part of the whole.

In your post I liked most of all that he didn't LIKE making cuts . That was nice. You know I don't like getting up early in the morning , but man sometimes I have no choice. And I guess so did Rakhmaninov. What you said about blood he had to take out doesn't exclude the dilemma he undoubtedly faced many times : either to sacrifice a part of himself or let his work be neglected. And as we can see in many cases he chose the former .1st concert- 2 versions (in the 2nd most of cuts were made in final), 4th concert - 3 versions (the last is the shortest and the most common ), 2nd sonata - 2 versions (again a lot of cuts in the last of them ) , 2nd symphony - full version which lasts about an hour and shortened (goes about 35 mins ). Of course you can find many more examples. Nobody says performer can freely discard those parts of work he doesn't like. But unlike a good student big interpreter is capable to become co-author of what he plays. He sees the work both in the whole and in details and sometimes he does feel there is something that disturbs the work to live at the stage. And sometimes it becomes an impact for the genius solutions like that of Horowitz when he mixed 2 versions of Rakhmaninov's 2nd sonata . Or Pletnev - when he cut 1,5 pages from 1st sonata and still for me his playing of this work can't be compared with anyone else . The point is that you can say about very few things it's clearly yes or no when we talk about the art.

As I said, Sjergjéy Vasíljevich was simply trying to survive and get his music out into the world in the midst of a milieu that at heart despised him. He didn't however make the cuts permanent or indicate that they were what he really wanted: the scores are left published _in toto_ for the most part. The disastrous première of his First Symphony (Op.13) was in part due to severe cuts being imposed by Aljeksándr Konstantínovich Glazúnov (who particularly was extremely contemptuous to him, even misplacing the score of his Fourth Piano-Concerto {Op.40} in a taxicab!!!). That - in addition to Glazúnov's being drunk and leading an under-rehearsed orchestra that didn't understand the music - nearly killed him at least as a composer if not even as a human being. Not until after his death did it get a proper hearing (hopefully uncut), after which it achieved a place in the permanent repertory. After hearing it performed by Ashkenázy with the Amsterdam Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra on Decca/London, I can appreciate both its strengths and its faults (he needed to develop the 1st-movement's sub-theme more, in my opinion, while other parts could have been reworked) - and I strongly hold to that the best case one can make for any given piece is to perform it uncut, with not one note added or altered. What Pljetñóv did is simply unacceptable.

I enjoyed reading this discussion. Was interesting. Thanks

I guess they weren't cut ocassionally, but after listening to the record where Rachmaninov himself conducts it. If you listen to that record carefully you'll see this is not full version either. The more I listen to Pletnev's version the more I feel how much he took from the author's record.

Because of the sound engineer! I didn't like it too ! But the whole piece is amazing though .

I think I agree there are some cuts here I have not heard. Seems telescoped somehow.

An overused and largely meaningless adjective to describe this masterpiece. Like an awesome cup of coffee An awesome movie An awesome holiday An awesome electric toaster…………

looks like clark gable

Masterpiece.

Yesssssssssss

Not compared to the composer's version. Although this does speed up a bit more at the climax at one point.

Si, pero creo que son cortes originales de Rachmaninoff mismo

@@Maarethyu Interesante

Yes actually there is a few other places like the one you pointed, where cuts were approved by Rachmaninoff.

@@Maarethyu Well, they aren't approved by me.

I think there is a lot of nuance missed in the way they play this. This tone poem when we'll played really sets up the feeling of the "Isle of the Dead". I am disappointed, love everything Rachmaninoff wrote, from solo piano works to symphonic and vocal, but not this.