Gramophone: best Rachmaninov

Post by HvT
Zimerman (PC #2)
Argerich (PC #3)
Michelangeli (PC #4)
Wild (Paganini R.)
Ashkenazy (complete PCs)
Glemser (PS #2)
Osborne (Preludes)
Shelley (complete solo)
Gramophone never fails to amaze me.
Henk

Aren't those the (very) old references by Gramophone?

And what about the non-painists (there's more music than piano)?

M forever

2012-11-26 18:01:08 UTC

The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

2012-11-26 18:20:14 UTC

Post by M forever
The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Really?

http://rachman.notlong.com
(ru.wikipedia)

Rachmaninov:
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergej_Rachmaninov
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergej_Rachmaninov
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergue%C3%AF_Rachmaninov
https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Rachmaninov
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Rachmaninov
<https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergej_Vasil%27evi%C4%8D_Rachmaninov>
https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergius_Rachmaninov
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergej_Rachmaninov
<https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergej_Vasilievi%C4%8D_Rachmaninov>
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergej_Rachmaninov

EM

d***@gmail.com

2012-11-26 18:33:19 UTC

The great man himself spelled it -off.

M forever

2012-11-26 19:58:54 UTC

Post by M forever
The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Really?

Yes. He always spelled his name that way (you can google for his
autograph and see for yourself), that's what it says on his tombstone
(google again) and that's how his publisher still spells his name.
Remember, he also died an US citizen so the last official form of his
name was in the Western alphabet. You can also look up his Ellis
Island immigration records.

Mark S

2012-11-26 20:22:58 UTC

Post by M forever
The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Really?

You are correct, my friend.

When I worked at BMG (RCA) - where Rachmaninoff made the bulk of his
recordings - we were under strict rules to spell his name as
"Rachmaninoff" because his RCA recording contract so stipulated. At
least that's what we were told.

Gerard

2012-11-26 20:26:17 UTC

Post by M forever
The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Really?

Yes. He always spelled his name that way (you can google for his
autograph and see for yourself), that's what it says on his
tombstone (google again) and that's how his publisher still spells
his name. Remember, he also died an US citizen so the last official
form of his name was in the Western alphabet. You can also look up
his Ellis Island immigration records.

You are correct, my friend.
When I worked at BMG (RCA) - where Rachmaninoff made the bulk of his
recordings - we were under strict rules to spell his name as
"Rachmaninoff" because his RCA recording contract so stipulated. At
least that's what we were told.

That's when you worked there, so you said.
Times changed, buddy.

2012-11-26 21:22:52 UTC

Post by M forever
Yes. He always spelled his name that way

So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are transliterated
differently, depending on the language, its alphabet (incl.
diacritics), its spelling and its pronunciation rules. There may also
be more than one "correct way" in a language.

You know that of course. But you love acting the pedantic arsehole
(asshole in yankeespeak).

EM

M forever

2012-11-26 22:57:14 UTC

Post by M forever
Yes. He always spelled his name that way

Very true, and that's why artists who emigrated to the West typically
chose one form of their name and stuck with it - imagine what it would
be like if you traveled all over the world and your name is spelled
different everywhere you go! That might also have legal implications
and problems attached to it, for instance, with contracts, and with
signing contracts.
And, as Mark has pointed out in the meantime, for that reason all his
recordings appeared under the form of the name Rachmaninoff chose when
he went to the West, the form of the name under which he became an US
citizen and which is what it says on his tombstone. It's not like he
is a historical person like Boris Godunov who never went to the West
and never chose the form of the name he wanted to be known under.

Post by EM
You know that of course. But you love acting the pedantic arsehole
(asshole in yankeespeak).

There is nothing pedantic about pointing out a simple historical and
biographical fact. I think it is unnecessarily pedantic though to
disrespect the man's own choice of how he wanted his own name be
spelled.

A similar example is "Mazda". The way the name is written in Japanese
would correctly be transliterated "Matsuda" but they chose "Mazda" as
the form of their company name in the Roman alphabet (and that's kind
of what it sounds like in Japanese anyway since the u is very weak,
almost completely silent), so that's it.

2012-11-26 23:08:54 UTC

Post by M forever
Yes. He always spelled his name that way

So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are transliterated
differently, depending on the language, its alphabet (incl.
diacritics), its spelling and its pronunciation rules. There may also
be more than one "correct way" in a language.
You know that of course. But you love acting the pedantic arsehole
(asshole in yankeespeak).

If you can't respect the composer's own wishes, his signature, the
name on his tombstone, then nobody really gives a flying fuck what you
say about anything.

Get thee to a nunnery.

TD

Mort

2012-11-27 02:50:43 UTC

Post by td
Get thee to a nunnery.
TD

It has been said that, in the time of Shakespeare, the word "nunnery"
was slang for a house of prostitution, so that "get thee to a nunnery"
had an entirely different meaning than what we might think today.

Let's really get back to the music.

Mort Linder

2012-11-27 11:04:11 UTC

Post by Mort

Post by td
Get thee to a nunnery.
TD

Les deux sont bons.

Post by Mort
Let's really get back to the music.

D'accord.

TD

Christopher Webber

2012-11-27 11:11:34 UTC

Post by Mort
It has been said that, in the time of Shakespeare, the word "nunnery"

Post by Mort
was slang for a house of prostitution, so that "get thee to a nunnery"
had an entirely different meaning than what we might think today.

It still retains that slang meaning, in South East London today at any
rate. Ah, the innocence of the 21st century!

But we shouldn't forget that Hamlet himself was probably not slanging
Ophelia, though smutty-minded audiences then (as now) would have picked
up on the writer's intentional ambiguity.

Kip Williams

2012-11-26 23:33:06 UTC

Post by M forever
Yes. He always spelled his name that way

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

Post by EM
You know that of course. But you love acting the pedantic arsehole
(asshole in yankeespeak).

Or you could just call people names when they do it.

Kip W

2012-11-27 00:08:28 UTC

Post by EM
So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are transliterated
differently, depending on the language, its alphabet (incl.
diacritics), its spelling and its pronunciation rules. There may also
be more than one "correct way" in a language.

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

He did not make the transliteration schemes for the languages of the
world. Rachmaninov is how his name is written in quite a few
countries, as I pointed out. Various other spellings of his name are
used in other countries with other languages. It has absolutely
nothing to do with a lack of respect for the composer.
That's how it is, whether you like it or not.

EM

M forever

2012-11-27 02:11:38 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

Perhaps not, because in many cases, it is probably just ignorance of
the historical facts. In your case, since you have been informed about
those historical facts, it is nothing but lack of respect for the
composer. It doesn't matter in how many ways the original Russian
spelling of his name can be transliterated in how many languages and
transliteration systems. It is for exactly that reason that the
*composer himself* chose a standard transliteration of his name, and
you should respect that. It doesn't even matter which version or form
he chose. If he had chosen to be known in the west as "Rockybaby", you
would have to respect that.

Post by EM
That's how it is, whether you like it or not.

The actual historical facts are how they are, whether you like it or
not. And in this case, the man himself decided the case. Like it or
not.

Gerard

2012-11-27 08:10:55 UTC

Post by EM
So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are
transliterated differently, depending on the language, its
alphabet (incl. diacritics), its spelling and its pronunciation
rules. There may also be more than one "correct way" in a
language.

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman
alphabet. You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

Post by EM
That's how it is, whether you like it or not.

The actual historical facts are how they are, whether you like it or
not. And in this case, the man himself decided the case. Like it or
not.

It's an historical fact that different record companies spell his name
'Rachmaninov', and that's how his name can be found in their catalogues. Same
for different websites of record retailers.
It's *you* who makes trouble about the spelling, again and again. Because that's
your life.

Oscar

2012-11-27 08:51:49 UTC

Post by Gerard

Post by M forever
The actual historical facts are how they are, whether you like it or
not. And in this case, the man himself decided the case. Like it or
not.

Holiday cheer with M: ways to spell Qaddafi http://tiny.cc/ykbfow

Qaddafi, Muammar
al-Gaddafi, Moamar
Al-Gathafi, Muammar
al-Qadhafi, Muammar
Al Qathafi, Mu’ammar
Al Qathafi, Muammar
El Gaddafi, Moamar
el-Gadhafi, Mo’ammar
El Kadhafi, Moamar
El Kadhafi, Moammar
El Kazzafi, Moamer
El Qathafi, Mu’Ammar
Gadafi, Muammar
Gaddafi, Moamar
Gadhafi, Mo’ammar
Gathafi, Muammar
Ghadafi, Muammar
Ghaddafi, Muammar
Ghaddafy, Muammar
Gheddafi, Muammar
Gheddafi, Muhammar
Kadaffi, Momar
Kad’afi, Mu`amar al- 20
Kaddafi, Muamar
Kaddafi, Muammar
Kadhafi, Moammar
Kadhafi, Moammar
Kadhafi, Mouammar
Kazzafi, Moammar
Khadafy, Moammar
Khaddafi, Muammar
etc.

http://tiny.cc/yvbfow

Mark S

2012-11-27 02:14:22 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.

Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

M forever

2012-11-27 02:23:55 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

Perhaps also because he lived in Paris for many years. The -ff was the
standard French transliteration and Koussevitzky had established his
very influential Edition Russe de la Musique in Paris, too. For that
reason, many Russian composers of the period are known under the
French versions of their names.
Or take Michel Béroff. He was born under this name to Russian
immigrants in France. That's why his name is Béroff, with the accent
and the -ff and all that - not Berov.

Bob Harper

2012-11-27 03:46:13 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

In P's case, it seems to me one is as likely to see -v as -ff. In fact,
in my collection of about 20 discs of his music, -v outnumbers -ff by 10
to 1. But then roughly the same is true of my R discs, with only a
couple using -ff. Several different labels. Should they be considered
'wrong'? Of have we, as so often happens here, made a mountain out of a
molehill?

Bob Harper

M forever

2012-11-28 04:08:19 UTC

Post by Bob Harper

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

That's the funny thing - I never thought it would be such a big deal
when it first came up in a discussion here. When I learned this a few
years ago, my reaction was "oh - I didn't know that - interesting". I
read up on it a little and realized it's not a matter of pedantry,
it's a matter of the historical context reflected and preserved in the
spelling of the name. Like if you read up on the origin of the name
Eisenhower which is a more English looking version of the German name
Eisenhauer (which is pronounced more or less the same way) - and
indeed that was what the family's name was originally. So that tells a
story. There is a context here.
Same with Rachmaninoff. When he went to the west, concertized,
published, recorded, he decided to use that form of his name. Just a
small, but interesting historical detail. No big deal.
But, apparently, too big a deal for some people to get into their very
small heads. Strange.

graham

2012-11-28 04:27:39 UTC

Post by Bob Harper

Post by EM
So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are
transliterated
differently, depending on the language, its alphabet (incl.
diacritics), its spelling and its pronunciation rules. There may also
be more than one "correct way" in a language.

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

John Wiser

2012-11-28 05:01:14 UTC

Post by EM
So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are
transliterated
differently, depending on the language, its alphabet (incl.
diacritics), its spelling and its pronunciation rules. There may also
be more than one "correct way" in a language.

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

Keep in mind that certain of the best Russian/Soviet composers
are of Polish extraction. They would spell those names
Czajkowski, Szostakowicz, Strawinski.

JDW

graham

2012-11-28 05:36:39 UTC

Post by EM
So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are
transliterated
differently, depending on the language, its alphabet (incl.
diacritics), its spelling and its pronunciation rules. There may also
be more than one "correct way" in a language.

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

Keep in mind that certain of the best Russian/Soviet composers
are of Polish extraction. They would spell those names
Czajkowski, Szostakowicz, Strawinski.
JDW

Yes but the "W" in this case is pronounced "V", n'est-ce-pas?

M forever

2012-11-28 05:41:26 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

Keep in mind that certain of the best Russian/Soviet composers
are of Polish extraction. They would spell those names
Czajkowski, Szostakowicz, Strawinski.
JDW

How do you know they are "of Polish extraction"? Is that something one
can tell from the names?

John Wiser

2012-11-28 06:24:54 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English
transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

How do you know they are "of Polish extraction"? Is that something one
can tell from the names?

I don't know where I picked this up but
I recall the source as seeming reliable,
perhaps from Boguslaw Schaeffer relayed
through his amanuensis with a Prussian name
which I can't recall now.
I have not verified it, but the surnames are
indeed commonly found in Poland. It is in
any case a good thing with which to take
the mickey out of Great Russian chauvinists. .

Let's look at that paragon of reliability, Wikipedia:

[Szostakowicz] born in St. Petersburg in the Russian family. Jego dziadek od
strony ojca byl pochodzenia polskiego, rodem z Wilna . His paternal
grandfather was of Polish descent
[Strawinski] His father's family has Polish roots, used a coat of arms
Sulima . Prapradziadek kompozytora Stanislaw Strawinski podczas konfederacji
barskiej 3 listopada 1771 uczestniczyl [1] [2] [3] w porwaniu króla
Stanislawa Augusta Poniatowskiego . Great-grandfather of the composer
Stanislaw Stravinsky during the Confederation of Bar 3 November 1771
involved [1] [2] [3] in the kidnapping of King Stanislaw August Poniatowski
.
[Czajkowskii cannot verify casually]

JDW

M forever

2012-11-29 04:46:04 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v" ending,
but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff opted
for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English
transliteration
because he felt the sound of the double ffs sounded more like his name
when pronounced in Russian than did the v. That, of course, had to do
with the Americans who were pronouncing it. He made a choice based on
trying it get it to sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

How do you know they are "of Polish extraction"? Is that something one
can tell from the names?

I don't know where I picked this up but
I recall the source as seeming reliable,
perhaps from Boguslaw Schaeffer relayed
through his amanuensis with a Prussian name
which I can't recall now.
I have not verified it, but the surnames are
indeed commonly found in Poland. It is in
any case a good thing with which to take
the mickey out of Great Russian chauvinists. .
[Szostakowicz] born in St. Petersburg in the Russian family. Jego dziadek od
strony ojca byl pochodzenia polskiego, rodem z Wilna . His paternal
grandfather was of Polish descent
[Strawinski] His father's family has Polish roots, used a coat of arms
Sulima . Prapradziadek kompozytora Stanislaw Strawinski podczas konfederacji
barskiej 3 listopada 1771 uczestniczyl [1] [2] [3] w porwaniu krï¿½la
Stanislawa Augusta Poniatowskiego . Great-grandfather of the composer
Stanislaw Stravinsky during the Confederation of Bar 3 November 1771
involved [1] [2] [3] in the kidnapping of King Stanislaw August Poniatowski
.
[Czajkowskii cannot verify casually]
JDW

Apparently the name is of Cossack origin. Interesting stuff anyway,
interesting etymologies. Reading up on that subject, I also found out
that Pushkin's great-grandfather was black (!) - he had been brought
to Russia as a gift (!) to Peter the Great who had him educated and he
rose very high in Russian society. What an adventurous life story!

Gerard

2012-11-28 07:46:55 UTC

Post by EM
So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are
transliterated differently, depending on the language, its
alphabet (incl. diacritics), its spelling and its
pronunciation rules. There may also be more than one
"correct way" in a language.

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman
alphabet. You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

He did not make the transliteration schemes for the languages
of the world. Rachmaninov is how his name is written in quite a
few countries, as I pointed out. Various other spellings of his
name are used in other countries with other languages. It has
absolutely nothing to do with a lack of respect for the
composer.
That's how it is, whether you like it or not.
EM

It mattered to Rachmaninoff. He could have opted for the "v"
ending, but he didn't.
Same thing goes for Prokofieff. I read somewhere that Prokofieff
opted for the "ff" ending rather than the "v" in its English
transliteration because he felt the sound of the double ffs
sounded more like his name when pronounced in Russian than did
the v. That, of course, had to do with the Americans who were
pronouncing it. He made a choice based on trying it get it to
sound as accurate as could be for non-Russians.

In P's case, it seems to me one is as likely to see -v as -ff. In
fact, in my collection of about 20 discs of his music, -v
outnumbers -ff by 10 to 1. But then roughly the same is true of my
R discs, with only a couple using -ff. Several different labels.
Should they be considered 'wrong'? Of have we, as so often happens
here, made a mountain out of a molehill?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
It is *YOU* who's making a big deal of it.. Again and again.

Kip Williams

2012-11-27 02:42:55 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

Granted, he didn't make transliteration schemes. But if he'd wanted to
spell his name "Rockmon-in-orff," that would have been his right, and
the decent thing to do would be to respect his choice instead of going
with this week's transliteration fad.

As I say, you could show some respect. Not sure why you don't, except I
guess you think you know better than the owner of the name. Perhaps if
you had a name of your own you'd feel differently.

Kip W

2012-11-27 03:14:20 UTC

Rachmaninoff chose how to transliterate his name in the Roman alphabet.
You could show some respect by honoring his wishes.

Granted, he didn't make transliteration schemes. But if he'd wanted to
spell his name "Rockmon-in-orff," that would have been his right, and
the decent thing to do would be to respect his choice instead of going
with this week's transliteration fad.
As I say, you could show some respect. Not sure why you don't, except I
guess you think you know better than the owner of the name. Perhaps if
you had a name of your own you'd feel differently.

I spell Rachmaninoff quite correctly, but I have trouble with John
Caige.

-Owen, and now, 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence.

Bob Harper

2012-11-27 01:16:08 UTC

Post by M forever
Yes. He always spelled his name that way

So what? R. had emigrated to the USA. Russian names are transliterated
differently, depending on the language, its alphabet (incl.
diacritics), its spelling and its pronunciation rules. There may also
be more than one "correct way" in a language.
You know that of course. But you love acting the pedantic arsehole
(asshole in yankeespeak).
EM

There was a long thread about this recently. IIRC, Ray Hall was
furiously in one camp (I forget which), and others were just as
furiously in the other. I think we all know what composer is being
referred to :)

Bob Harper

William Sommerwerck

2012-11-27 12:19:48 UTC

If it wasn't for St Cyril's brilliant idea to come up with the Glagolitic
alphabet (when the Roman alphabet already existed), we wouldn't be having
this discussion.

Gerard

2012-11-27 12:23:13 UTC

Post by William Sommerwerck
If it wasn't for St Cyril's brilliant idea to come up with the
Glagolitic alphabet (when the Roman alphabet already existed), we
wouldn't be having this discussion.

We only have this discussion because Misery forever likes to "discuss" this.

Gerard

2012-11-26 18:21:39 UTC

The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Not so when it is spelled differently. Like in the Gramophone.

wkasimer

2012-11-26 18:52:38 UTC

Post by M forever
The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Nope. It's spelled "Рахма́нинов"

Bill

Kip Williams

2012-11-26 23:34:25 UTC

Post by wkasimer

Post by M forever
The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Nope. It's spelled "Рахма́нинов"

It -was-. He changed it.

Kip W

2012-11-27 03:15:14 UTC

Post by M forever
The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Nope. It's spelled "???????????"

It -was-. He changed it.

The question marks are silent.

-Owen

CharlesSmith

2012-11-27 10:14:43 UTC

Post by wkasimer

Post by M forever
The name is actually spelled "Rachmaninoff".

Nope. It's spelled "Рахма́нинов"

It -was-. He changed it.
Kip W

Actually no it wasn't. That's the Soviet spelling he was objecting to - that transliterates to -ov.

Charles

d***@gmail.com

2012-11-26 18:32:34 UTC

I wasn't aware that Gramophone reviewer Richard Osborne had recorded the Preludes, but I'm confident his renditions will be full of breadth and humanity.

William Sommerwerck

2012-11-26 19:58:17 UTC

Zimerman (PC #2)
Argerich (PC #3)
Michelangeli (PC #4)
Wild (Paganini R.)
Ashkenazy (complete PCs)
Glemser (PS #2)
Osborne (Preludes)
Shelley (complete solo)

Post by HvT
Gramophone never fails to amaze me.

In what way? I have no problem with Michelangeli or Wild. Haven't heard the
others, that I recall.

HvT

2012-11-26 20:33:39 UTC

Post by HvT
Zimerman (PC #2)
Argerich (PC #3)
Michelangeli (PC #4)
Wild (Paganini R.)
Ashkenazy (complete PCs)
Glemser (PS #2)
Osborne (Preludes)
Shelley (complete solo)

Post by HvT
Gramophone never fails to amaze me.

In what way? I have no problem with Michelangeli or Wild. Haven't
heard the others, that I recall.

Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

Henk

Christopher Webber

2012-11-26 20:43:38 UTC

Post by HvT
Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

If Gramophone's list encourages you to challenge your prejudices and
give Osborne and Shelley a spin, all the better. They're excellent.

I wasn't aware that Zimerman, Argerich, Michelangeli, Wild, Ashkenazy or
Glemser had taken out British citizenship, but we learn something every
day, don't we?

Gerard

2012-11-26 20:48:22 UTC

Post by HvT
Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the
best intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

If Gramophone's list encourages you to challenge your prejudices and
give Osborne and Shelley a spin, all the better. They're excellent.
I wasn't aware that Zimerman, Argerich, Michelangeli, Wild, Ashkenazy
or Glemser had taken out British citizenship, but we learn something
every day, don't we?

Right. This newsgroup is getting better and better daily.

JohnGavin

2012-11-26 21:35:17 UTC

Post by HvT
Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

If Gramophone's list encourages you to challenge your prejudices and
give Osborne and Shelley a spin, all the better. They're excellent.

The Shelley set is variable, I think, with the Preludes, Etudes, and Transcriptions being stronger performances, while the Sonatas and Moments Musicaux are somewhat weaker and the Chopin and Corelli Variations somewhat middling, I think. They are listing him as the best complete solo set, so there's not too much competition to my knowledge. Perhaps they are judging that Ashkenazy's solo recordings were brought down by his recentish Sonata #1 and Chopin Variations which are weak and shaky performances. I don't think Ruth Laredo's set was ever competitive. For the Preludes I would choose Nebolsin on Naxos over Shelley, who is not bad by any means. I don't know the Osborne set (I like his Messiaen Regards very much). The Etudes op. 33 and 39 would go to Ashkenazy. Certainly the Sonata #1 to Berezovsky over Shelley.

I'm not sure I agree with ZImerman as the best #2 - I listened to it back to back with Cliburn and felt that Zimerman was very elegant and distinguished in a phrase to phrase perspective, but that Cliburn grasped the piece as a whole more convincingly.

They might have mentioned that the best PC#1 was the composer's version, by far IMO.

Argerich is a great #3 if you hear the piece as strictly a showcase for the piano with the orchestra's role as a distant second, otherwise a recording like the Gilels/Kondrashin might prove to be a better balanced collaboration.

Agree completely with ABM / Gracis #4.

Post by Christopher Webber
I wasn't aware that Zimerman, Argerich, Michelangeli, Wild, Ashkenazy or
Glemser had taken out British citizenship, but we learn something every
day, don't we?

Christopher Webber

2012-11-26 21:45:45 UTC

Post by JohnGavin
The Shelley set is variable, I think, with the Preludes, Etudes, and Transcriptions being stronger performances, while the Sonatas and Moments Musicaux are somewhat weaker and the Chopin and Corelli Variations somewhat middling, I think.

I'd agree with you on the relative strengths and weaknesses of Shelley's
set, though I warm to his "Moments Musicaux" rather more - I like his
cool-headed precision there, though he doesn't frighten the horses.

Contrapuntal clarity is Shelley's strength: there's no way he makes
*any* Rachmaninov sound showy or cheap. Others may excite more
initially, but I at least go back to his playing with increasing pleasure.

Of course piano aficionados are notoriously faddy partisans, and such
intelligence and lack of show won't be to all tastes!

JohnGavin

2012-11-26 21:52:29 UTC

I'd agree with you on the relative strengths and weaknesses of Shelley's
set, though I warm to his "Moments Musicaux" rather more - I like his
cool-headed precision there, though he doesn't frighten the horses.
Contrapuntal clarity is Shelley's strength: there's no way he makes
*any* Rachmaninov sound showy or cheap. Others may excite more
initially, but I at least go back to his playing with increasing pleasure.
Of course piano aficionados are notoriously faddy partisans, and such
intelligence and lack of show won't be to all tastes!

I do hope you will hear Nebolsin's Preludes, if you haven't yet. It is precisely his handling of the counterpoint that has impressed me greatly. I appreciate Shelley's elegance and coolness too.

Christopher Webber

2012-11-26 22:07:10 UTC

Post by JohnGavin
I do hope you will hear Nebolsin's Preludes, if you haven't yet. It is precisely his handling of the counterpoint that has impressed me greatly.

You have me intrigued. It looks as if your recommendations will be
costing me money again!

2012-11-26 23:10:52 UTC

I'd agree with you on the relative strengths and weaknesses of Shelley's
set, though I warm to his "Moments Musicaux" rather more - I like his
cool-headed precision there, though he doesn't frighten the horses.
Contrapuntal clarity is Shelley's strength: there's no way he makes
*any* Rachmaninov sound showy or cheap. Others may excite more
initially, but I at least go back to his playing with increasing pleasure.
Of course piano aficionados are notoriously faddy partisans, and such
intelligence and lack of show won't be to all tastes!

I do hope you will hear Nebolsin's Preludes, if you haven't yet. It is precisely his handling of the counterpoint that has impressed me greatly. I appreciate Shelley's elegance and coolness too.

Agreed.

Above all avoice Guillaume Vincent's new set from France. A box of
Belgian milk chocolates all with soft centers. Yuk!

TD

2012-11-26 23:09:56 UTC

Post by HvT
Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

If Gramophone's list encourages you to challenge your prejudices and
give Osborne and Shelley a spin, all the better. They're excellent.

The Shelley set is variable, I think, with the Preludes, Etudes, and Transcriptions being stronger performances, while the Sonatas and Moments Musicaux are somewhat weaker and the Chopin and Corelli Variations somewhat middling, I think. They are listing him as the best complete solo set, so there's not too much competition to my knowledge. Perhaps they are judging that Ashkenazy's solo recordings were brought down by his recentish Sonata #1 and Chopin Variations which are weak and shaky performances. I don't think Ruth Laredo's set was ever competitive. For the Preludes I would choose Nebolsin on Naxos over Shelley, who is not bad by any means. I don't know the Osborne set (I like his Messiaen Regards very much). The Etudes op. 33 and 39 would go to Ashkenazy. Certainly the Sonata #1 to Berezovsky over Shelley.
I'm not sure I agree with ZImerman as the best #2 - I listened to it back to back with Cliburn and felt that Zimerman was very elegant and distinguished in a phrase to phrase perspective, but that Cliburn grasped the piece as a whole more convincingly.
They might have mentioned that the best PC#1 was the composer's version, by far IMO.
Argerich is a great #3 if you hear the piece as strictly a showcase for the piano with the orchestra's role as a distant second, otherwise a recording like the Gilels/Kondrashin might prove to be a better balanced collaboration.

Oh, so you like the piece slashed to bits, do you?

I prefer it whole.

TD

HvT

2012-11-26 23:14:44 UTC

Post by HvT
Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

If Gramophone's list encourages you to challenge your prejudices and
give Osborne and Shelley a spin, all the better. They're excellent.
I wasn't aware that Zimerman, Argerich, Michelangeli, Wild, Ashkenazy
or Glemser had taken out British citizenship, but we learn something
every day, don't we?

Hmmm. I wasn't aware of it either - and therefore limited the number of
English pianists to those on the list who played Rachmaninov's music for
solo [sic!] piano. Besides, it isn't the point whether these are excellent
pianists or not but whether their recordings of Rachmaninov deserve to be
called the best.

Your reference to my prejudices misses the point too. I've given Osborne and
Shelley 'a spin', as you call it - and they are far better than any Dutch
pianist I know. I just find it hard to believe that they are the best
interpreters of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

To jump on one's horse and gallop off in all directions to defend the honour
of one's mistress (i.c. the excellence of British musicians) is a noble
thing to do - and deserves my appreciation.

Henk

Christopher Webber

2012-11-26 23:57:33 UTC

Post by HvT
I just find it hard to believe that they are the best
interpreters of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

You aren't required to "believe" anything of the kind. In their limited
categories
the pooled opinion of Gramophone critics - some of whom, such as Stephen
Plaistow for example, one might trust better than others, such as .....
[the task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you!] - is that
this set of pianists will do very nicely.

Despite the headliner, I don't think any of these critics would for one
moment claim that they were offering any sort of objective judgement as
to "best". They know as well as anyone that such a claim would be utter
nonsense.

Nor could they produce a list stretching half way around the Wall of
China, which is what would have happened if they'd taken account of
every damned pianist who had ever recorded a snatch of Rakkers.

I'm relieved your moan about Gramophone wasn't because an English
publication dared to choose two English pianists for its little list:
and actually it says something for the current reputation of this
magazine that its informed, personal opinions are treated by quite a few
contributors here as if they were claiming to be some sort of musical
coda to the Ten Commandments.

Gramophone may once have been that sort of magazine, but Lord Knows it
ain't that way now!

2012-11-27 03:18:15 UTC

Post by HvT
Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

If Gramophone's list encourages you to challenge your prejudices and
give Osborne and Shelley a spin, all the better. They're excellent.
I wasn't aware that Zimerman, Argerich, Michelangeli, Wild, Ashkenazy or
Glemser had taken out British citizenship, but we learn something every
day, don't we?

Indeed, the question rises, why aren't there more??!

If only Rachmaninoffvvvvffff had written more different types of piano
music, we could get more British pianists involved.

-Owen

2012-11-26 21:24:54 UTC

Post by HvT
Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

They and Wibi S. of course. ;-)

EM

Simon Smith

2012-11-27 16:07:24 UTC

Post by HvT

Post by HvT
Zimerman (PC #2)
Argerich (PC #3)
Michelangeli (PC #4)
Wild (Paganini R.)
Ashkenazy (complete PCs)
Glemser (PS #2)
Osborne (Preludes)
Shelley (complete solo)

Post by HvT
Gramophone never fails to amaze me.

In what way? I have no problem with Michelangeli or Wild. Haven't
heard the others, that I recall.

Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

If we're being precise about it, Osborne is Scottish :)

I must say, though I'm quite fond of some of performances chosen here, I
do rather wish people would stop trotting out the OMG NOBODY BUT
MICHELANGELI CAN EVER BE CONSIDERED A WORTHY INTERPRETER OF RACH 4 LOL!!
thing. As fine as the recording is.

Simon

George

2012-11-27 16:16:58 UTC

Post by Simon Smith

Post by HvT

Post by HvT
Zimerman (PC #2)
Argerich (PC #3)
Michelangeli (PC #4)
Wild (Paganini R.)
Ashkenazy (complete PCs)
Glemser (PS #2)
Osborne (Preludes)
Shelley (complete solo)

Post by HvT
Gramophone never fails to amaze me.

In what way? I have no problem with Michelangeli or Wild. Haven't
heard the others, that I recall.

Until now it completely escaped me that English pianists are the best
intepreters ever of Rachmaninov's music for solo piano.

If we're being precise about it, Osborne is Scottish :)
I must say, though I'm quite fond of some of performances chosen here, I
do rather wish people would stop trotting out the OMG NOBODY BUT
MICHELANGELI CAN EVER BE CONSIDERED A WORTHY INTERPRETER OF RACH 4 LOL!!
thing. As fine as the recording is.
Simon

I actually don't find his Rach 4 to be among my favorites.

George

William Sommerwerck

2012-11-27 17:40:01 UTC

Post by Simon Smith
I must say, though I'm quite fond of some of performances chosen here,
I do rather wish people would stop trotting out the OMG NOBODY BUT
MICHELANGELI CAN EVER BE CONSIDERED A WORTHY INTERPRETER
OF RACH 4 LOL!! thing. As fine as the recording is.

Well, name another good performance. I've yet to hear one.

The Fourth is a problematic work. To me, most performances sound confused
and unfocused. Michelangeli's does not. The near-universal acclaim it's
received has nothing to do with the performer, and everything to do with the
performance.

Post by Simon Smith
I actually don't find his Rach 4 to be among my favorites.

What are your favorites?

I'll have to pull out the composer's version and see how he did it.

George

2012-11-27 18:20:01 UTC

Post by William Sommerwerck

On Nov 27, 12:40 pm, "William Sommerwerck"

Well, name another good performance. I've yet to hear one.
The Fourth is a problematic work. To me, most performances sound confused
and unfocused. Michelangeli's does not. The near-universal acclaim it's
received has nothing to do with the performer, and everything to do with the
performance.

Post by Simon Smith
I actually don't find his Rach 4 to be among my favorites.

What are your favorites?

As posted above, Wild/Horenstein. I also like Ashkenazy/Previn.

George

Dufus

2012-11-27 19:25:01 UTC

Post by William Sommerwerck
Well, name another good performance. I've yet to hear one.

Poor sound, but Sergio Fiorentino , live in 1955 ( or "Fiorentini "
per the announcer ) :

( Part 1
of 3 there )

"E' il solo altro pianista." (He is the only other pianist)
- Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli

d***@gmail.com

2012-11-26 22:36:40 UTC

Was that the compete list?

I find it hard to believe that even Gramophone could come up with a "best of" collection of pianists that excludes Richter, Gilels, Horowitz, Cliburn and the composer himself.

Dufus

2012-11-27 01:30:51 UTC

IMNSHO :

Sonata # 1 : Ogdon , RCA studio ; Minnaar , studio
Sonata # 2 : VanCliburn, 1960 live,Moscow ; Joseph Villa, live
Cello Sonata : Ma and Kahane, live at Avery Fisher
Preludes : Fiorentino
Etudes Tableaux : Berezovsky, Fiorentino , Richter
Op.16 Moments Musicaux : Berman, 1956
Corelli : Santiago , Bax, Lugansky, Ratser
Op.3 : Graffman
Concerto 1 : Rachmaninoff , Entremont
Concerto 2 : Cliburn, Rubinstein
Concerto 3 : Cliburn ( 1958 live )
Concerto 4 : Undecided. Not overwhelmed by ABM / Gecic
Rhapsody : Undecided, Rubinstein perhaps.

Symphony No. 2 : Boult, LPO ; Slatkin,St.Louis
Symphony 1 : Slatkin, St.Louis
Isle of the Dead : Reiner, CSO
Symphonic Dances : Vronsky & Babin

2012-11-27 03:24:29 UTC

In article

Add Helene Grimaud, especially in #1.

Post by Dufus
Op.16 Moments Musicaux : Berman, 1956
Corelli : Santiago , Bax, Lugansky, Ratser
Op.3 : Graffman
Concerto 1 : Rachmaninoff , Entremont

All hail to Dufus for nominating Philippe Entremont!!

-Owen, who doesn't hear that name around these parts very often.

Dufus

2012-11-27 14:28:08 UTC

Post by O
All hail to Dufus for nominating Philippe Entremont!!

Haven't heard Wibi's # 2,3 yet : http://tinyurl.com/cbc49jq

Gerard

2012-11-27 14:31:33 UTC

Post by Dufus

Post by O
All hail to Dufus for nominating Philippe Entremont!!

Haven't heard Wibi's # 2,3 yet : http://tinyurl.com/cbc49jq

Without having heard that posting here is useless.

2012-11-27 18:33:14 UTC

In article

Post by Dufus

Post by O
All hail to Dufus for nominating Philippe Entremont!!

Haven't heard Wibi's # 2,3 yet : http://tinyurl.com/cbc49jq

I think we need a new acronym to the rmcr lexicon: WWWD?

What would Wibi do?

-Owen

Lena

2012-11-27 18:46:31 UTC

Post by O
In article

Post by O
All hail to Dufus for nominating Philippe Entremont!!

Haven't heard Wibi's # 2,3 yet : http://tinyurl.com/cbc49jq

I think we need a new acronym to the rmcr lexicon: WWWD?
What would Wibi do?

Seconded. Hopefully WWWD can be tweaked to apply to performances of
the Ock, too? (Even though he was pianistically terribly
underdeveloped. At least as a composer. I have no idea what he did
in his spare time.)

Lena

John Wiser

2012-11-27 18:58:36 UTC

Post by O
In article

Post by O
All hail to Dufus for nominating Philippe Entremont!!
Haven't heard Wibi's # 2,3 yet : http://tinyurl.com/cbc49jq

I think we need a new acronym to the rmcr lexicon: WWWD?
What would Wibi do?

He stretched canvases.for Jan van Eyck.

jdw

m***@gmail.com

2012-11-27 14:28:00 UTC

Post by Dufus
Sonata # 1 : Ogdon , RCA studio ; Minnaar , studio
Sonata # 2 : VanCliburn, 1960 live,Moscow ; Joseph Villa, live
Cello Sonata : Ma and Kahane, live at Avery Fisher
Preludes : Fiorentino
Etudes Tableaux : Berezovsky, Fiorentino , Richter
Op.16 Moments Musicaux : Berman, 1956
Corelli : Santiago , Bax, Lugansky, Ratser
Op.3 : Graffman
Concerto 1 : Rachmaninoff , Entremont
Concerto 2 : Cliburn, Rubinstein
Concerto 3 : Cliburn ( 1958 live )
Concerto 4 : Undecided. Not overwhelmed by ABM / Gecic
Rhapsody : Undecided, Rubinstein perhaps.
Symphony No. 2 : Boult, LPO ; Slatkin,St.Louis
Symphony 1 : Slatkin, St.Louis
Isle of the Dead : Reiner, CSO
Symphonic Dances : Vronsky & Babin

Regarding the Piano Concerto #1, Janis-Reiner deserves a place at or near the top of the list. I also think the first Ormandy-Philadelphia stereo version of the Second Symphony, the one originally released by Columbia, is special, even with the (God forbid!) traditional cuts. Ormandy recorded it again without cuts for RCA, but that performance is not as compelling.

Mark

Sol L. Siegel

2012-11-27 05:48:25 UTC

Zimerman's OK, but I prefer Cliburn and some old-time prewar virtuoso
whose name I forget. Sergei something-or-other. Made some pretty
good recordings of the other concerti, too, IIRC.

I have written before that Argerich plays PC3 as if she's being
chased by the devil and at some point comes to realize that she's
going to lose - exhausting rather than exhilarating. I'm not going
to list all those, just in my own collection, that I prefer.

Which Ashkenazy set? Doesn't matter. I prefer Orozco, Vasary (one
of the few who plays not only the extra measure in the "big"
cadenza but also the four-note variant at the end of the finale of
3) and the composer (except for 3!) to almost any Rach concerto
recording I've ever heard from Ashkenazy. I do like VA's preludes,
though.

A vote for Ovchinnikov's Etudes-Tableaux.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

George

2012-11-27 13:24:41 UTC

My picks:

Richter/Wislocki (PC #2)
Janis/Dorati (PC #3)
Wild/Horenstein (PC #4)
Rudy/Jansons (Paganini R.)
Rudy/Jansons (complete PCs)
Horowitz, Live 1981, Carnegie Hall (PS #2)
Ashkenazy (Preludes)
Angelich (Etudes Tableaux)

George

w***@babel.nl

2012-12-03 21:06:28 UTC

Because these are no good pianists??

TH

HvT

2012-12-03 23:06:02 UTC