The article nominally is titled "How Radical was Rachmaninoff?", but my read sounds a lot more like the author is overly obsessed with questions of being up-to-date and fashionable and is struggling with the idea of liking something that isn't (or wasn't) following the latest fashions and is having some cognitive dissonance as a result. As a bonus some fashionable cognitive dissonance is signaled at the end about whether it's OK to enjoy the work of someone who dies long before their nominal country of origin does something the author doesn't like. (I say "nominal" because Rachmaninoff died two "countries" ago.)<p>To which my reply would be in essence, stop worrying about "fashionability". Here in 2022, you can have any <i>number</i> of community's fashions, and any amount of work being done in any number of older styles. Don't look to some particular community to tell you whether it's OK to like something. (And I <i>really</i> wouldn't recommend looking only to what currently passes for academic "high" music.)<p>And as for the latter, give up liking anything if that's going to be your standard. Wait long enough and the descendants of every culture currently existing is going to do something you don't like. Might as well get ahead of the curve and just reject everything now because someday someone somewhere is going to do a bad thing.<p>Reject your inner high school. Like what you like. Dislike what you dislike. Stop waiting for other people to give you an approved list of what it's OK for you to like.
I don't think the article even attempts to answer the question. To my ears, Rachmaninov is not radical, rather someone who created his own branch, veering slightly away from late Romanticism. His harmonies and passing notes almost defy the idea of "extended chords" but remain tonal; there's even not much of the chromaticism often found in the works of composers less radical than the Second Viennese School. Nobody followed in his style, AFAIK, not unlike Bruckner's case. Rachmaninov is more of a lone star than a radical.
Rachmaninoff speaks:<p>"I have no sympathy with the composer who produces works according to pre-conceived formulas or theories. Or with the composer who writes in a certain style because it is the fashion to do so. Great music has never been produced in that way – and I dare say it never will.<p>...I say again and again that music must first and foremost be loved; it must come from the heart and must be directed to the heart. Otherwise, it cannot hope to be lasting, indestructible art.<p>...it is my own pet belief that, if you have something important to say, you don’t need a new language in which to say it. The old language is sufficiently rich and resourceful. The young composers make the mistake of believing that you achieve originality through technique. Actually, the only originality worth achieving is that which comes from substance. A composer can use all the accepted tools of composition and produce a work far different in style and subject matter from any ever produced, because he has put into music his own personality and experiences."<p>p.s. The article doesn't mention what Rachmaninoff thought his greatest work, the choral symphony <i>The Bells</i>. My favourite version, conducted by Kiril Kondrashin, Moscow 1963, video with full score: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4b08aVZn0w" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4b08aVZn0w</a>
So radical that playing alexis weissenberg's rendition of Morceaux de fantaisie, Op. 3: No. 2, Prélude in C-Sharp Minor leaves chills down my spine to this day.
> Can such a figure really be deemed an anachronism?<p>Obvious answer is the correct answer: yes!<p>Hell, there are moments in Brahms' Paganini Variations that are more experimental than Rach's Paganini Rhapsody. I'm thinking in particular of that wonderful little canon where the right hand follows the left hand in a slightly-altered triplet pattern.<p>Alternatively, listen to Lutoslawski's Paganini Variations for two pianos written only seven years after Rach's Paganini Rhapsody. And realize that is about as conservative as Lutoslawski gets!<p>There's absolutely nothing wrong with Rach's compositions, and turning the theme upside down in the Rhapsody was a stroke of brilliance. But the question is elementary to answer and not at all elucidating. He wasn't a radical composer in any reasonable sense of the word.
Even in his day, Rachmaninoff was derided as being behind the times, stuck in the 19th century. I can't help thinking the hatred is similar to the singing purists exalting Domingo and trashing Pavarotti.<p>In fact, Domingo IS a "better" singer and does sing to your heart and not just your head, but Pavarotti is the one who communicates with ordinary people. There is nothing wrong with that.<p>Alex Ross (<i>The Rest is Noise</i>) is a champion of modern, dissonant-sounding music, and he knows his music theory backwards and forwards. So he's someone people would <i>expect</i> to despise the Rach-man. Knowing that, I don't see this article as condescending.
Wow. Nothing in the article reflected the man whom for Rach#3 I had read the liner notes: It was so difficult that he had to have a piano on the ship to practice. Before 'Shine' there were only a handful of players who would attempt it, after 'Shine' and its gain in popularity, there are now room fulls of 16 year olds who can play it note for note, and a few that can riff off of it.<p>He was very progressive.
An opportunity for my favorite "Russian composer" joke!<p>Did you know that Tchaikovsky struggled with depression? He once tried to commit suicide by walking into a frozen river. Do you know what happened?<p>He got cold feet.<p>It's funny 'cause it's true!