People criticising the cadenza for not "fitting in" baffle me. You've just had 6 minutes of pure I-V leading up to the cadenza -- I'm frankly dying by that point for some harmonic colour, and Rachmaninoff comments on the motifs of rhapsody really cleverly (& with a kind of breezy cynicism) while throwing around some gorgeous chords. Fantastic stuff.
I don't see why it's so necessary that the cadenza matches the rest of the piece. A cadenza is an extension and realization of the pianist's own originality, technique, and style. Who says that it needs to sound just like Liszt? Rachmaninoff was transporting us to his own world and giving his own take on themes and motifs from the rest of the piece. I don't see why that's a problem, and honestly, it sounds brilliant, almost as if the passage came straight from his Etude-Tableaux or something.
The distortions in melody and harmony along with the opening glissandos almost make it appear that Rachmaninov wrote this cadenza as a humorous commentary on Liszt's Rhapsody. Rachmaninov plays the remainder of the piece with apparent "ease", as only Rachmaninov could. Then comes this rather convoluted cadenza...intriguing and worth listening to over and over, but "jarring", as another commentator writes. Any thought on why Rachmaninov wrote in such a manner?
I am a great Rachmaninoff fan. Indeed, the reason I am a music teacher can be partly attributed to the influence he had on my musical mind as I was learning my craft and growing up. The cadenza tells you much more about Rachmaninoff than Liszt, as many have said. Yes, perhaps it is 'jarring' as some have said, because it doesn't sound like Liszt's harmonies (it is of the twentieth century rather than the nineteenth), nor Liszt's style of piano writing. Rachmaninoff is being the composer here rather than trying to replicate Liszt's idiomatic musical language. As a composer himself, I think he is entitled to put his own spin on it. I imagine he wrote it for himself to play as a concert pianist to show off his own technique, much as Liszt's music is about his own tremendous command of the instrument. Were Liszt's huge number of transcriptions idiomatic of the composers whose music he arranged and transcribed? I don't think so! Rachmaninoff probably never imagined that 100 years later we would be having this debate. Authenticity in music was not a big thing in Rachmaninoff's day: it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Let's not judge him by our current standards.
People criticising the cadenza for not "fitting in" baffle me. You've just had 6 minutes of pure I-V leading up to the cadenza -- I'm frankly dying by that point for some harmonic colour, and Rachmaninoff comments on the motifs of rhapsody really cleverly (& with a kind of breezy cynicism) while throwing around some gorgeous chords. Fantastic stuff.
"The perfect music collab doesn't exi-"
Magnificent cadenza,
I don't see why it's so necessary that the cadenza matches the rest of the piece. A cadenza is an extension and realization of the pianist's own originality, technique, and style. Who says that it needs to sound just like Liszt? Rachmaninoff was transporting us to his own world and giving his own take on themes and motifs from the rest of the piece. I don't see why that's a problem, and honestly, it sounds brilliant, almost as if the passage came straight from his Etude-Tableaux or something.
Ferecz Liszt - Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, S. 244/2
This must have brought down the house the first time people heard this.
Cadenza is fantastique, like the rhapsody went into a fever-dream, distorting through keys & tempos. The rendering is awesome
Rachmaninoff please, stahp, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 is already very difficult!
The cadenza sounds like a drunk person trying to play the piece, really fun 😁
9:57
The distortions in melody and harmony along with the opening glissandos almost make it appear that Rachmaninov wrote this cadenza as a humorous commentary on Liszt's Rhapsody. Rachmaninov plays the remainder of the piece with apparent "ease", as only Rachmaninov could. Then comes this rather convoluted cadenza...intriguing and worth listening to over and over, but "jarring", as another commentator writes. Any thought on why Rachmaninov wrote in such a manner?
9:47
----------------------------------
Superb work by the great Rach!!
Those glissandos tho
Fantástico! Trabalho mútuo de dois gênios!!
I am a great Rachmaninoff fan. Indeed, the reason I am a music teacher can be partly attributed to the influence he had on my musical mind as I was learning my craft and growing up. The cadenza tells you much more about Rachmaninoff than Liszt, as many have said. Yes, perhaps it is 'jarring' as some have said, because it doesn't sound like Liszt's harmonies (it is of the twentieth century rather than the nineteenth), nor Liszt's style of piano writing. Rachmaninoff is being the composer here rather than trying to replicate Liszt's idiomatic musical language. As a composer himself, I think he is entitled to put his own spin on it. I imagine he wrote it for himself to play as a concert pianist to show off his own technique, much as Liszt's music is about his own tremendous command of the instrument. Were Liszt's huge number of transcriptions idiomatic of the composers whose music he arranged and transcribed? I don't think so! Rachmaninoff probably never imagined that 100 years later we would be having this debate. Authenticity in music was not a big thing in Rachmaninoff's day: it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Let's not judge him by our current standards.
I have always interpreted Rachmaninoff as "this music should be making you
Bravo brilliance music grandiose virtuoso
Rachmaninoff please, this piece is already technically difficult!