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.
It's a matter of taste and personal preference. I don't believe for a second that you are actually baffled by the fact that people like different things. :) I can understand if someone finds the juxtaposition of the harmonic language of a folkish 1840s piece and that of Sergei's 1920s magic jarring, and at the same time it is absolutely riveting to have a chance to hear Rachmaninov's response to Liszt's invitation for a cadenza.
maybe they think it doesn't fit in *because* it strays from the original harmonic ideas (i think that's the right word). Of course I like it, but it's something to at least consider.
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.
How does it not match the piece? Even I as an 8yr old boy could tell the cadenza was a clever addition by another composer who wished to embellish if you will and admire this work in their own way before ending. And if anyone else has some dumb conceded comment about a cadenza, I would bet every last layer of the skin off my ass on the coldest day ever that Liszt would absolutely love it. He himself wasn't unknown to transcribe and paraphrase others' works-------now was he?
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?
No one: Absolutely no one: Rachmaninoff: GLISSANDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and SCHERZANDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and some crazy modulations and some atonality and other stuff and all that on a crazy enough motive ohhhhhhh my precious music *laughs in Rachmaninoff*
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.
Why the criticism of the cadenza? The critics are unlikely to be able to play it. The performance is the main surprise and to which attention should be paid. A virtuoso pianist new to me with an amazing and outstanding technique. How does Russia breed these pianists? Can anybody confirm whether there were any edits - the tempos are so fast , it is difficult to imagine no errors. My personal view has always been that whilst many pianists can get their fingers around the notes of the Rhapsodies, only a few very top virtuosi such as MAH, Horowitz, Bermann etc can reveal the true original sound or intentions of Liszt. This is why I believe few virtuoso pianists will tackle them in concert as their personal shortcomings will be open for all to see. My point is perhaps clearer if one listens to the Horowitz arrangement or the performance of Cziffra or Rachmaninov - luckily all are available on TH-cam. What a wonderful channel this is.
Why the criticism of the other commenters? They have opinions different from yours, that's all. And being able to play a piece is certainly not a precondition for being allowed to comment on a performance of it. And you can't play it either, so why do you impose rules on others that you don't impose on yourself?
I like the cadenza on its own, but it's quite jarring in the context of the piece. Rachmaninoff made absolutely no attempt to write this in the style of Liszt (which is what you would traditionally do if you are writing a cadenza meant to be performed within a piece of music), it's Rachmaninoff through and through, sounds like his late style too, which makes it even more jarring. But I still enjoyed hearing it.
@@kevin.afton_ Agreed. Liszt, when he taught his students, famously didn't want carbon copies of himself. He stressed individuality (in terms of style) with his students.
What? Traditionally that is absolutely not what a Cadenza is. A cadenza is traditionally not even written out. It is meant to be improvised. The greatest Cadenzas have an unique style, like Beethoven's and Alkan's Cadenzas for Mozart's Concertos. Frankly I don't even get why you would use traditionally, cadenzas are very rarely written down. I find it hard to believe you'd have heard some of the greatest pianist of the 19th century perform cadenzas in the traditional way. Those that are written down are totally not what you describe.
@Hapedise Divide19 Not really, it translates to "at one's pleasure" or "as you desire" and since it is at their pleasure, they are free in how they improvise the cadenza.
I personally like Rachmaninoff much more than Liszt but this cadenza just doesn't fit to this Rhapsody's style. It sounds like another, not connected piece inside the other one :(
Pretty sure Rachmaninoff was just showing his humorous side. The original piece itself is kinda goofy when compared to a lot of what written during that era (especially the fast section), Sergei just took things a step further. He was also known for having enormous hands similar to Liszt.
While I see what you mean, an unwritten cadenza means that you play freely as you see fit. Also, Liszt (when teaching his students) famously didn't want carbon copies of himself. He stressed individuality, in terms of style, to his students.
Cadenza means free style and it doesn't at all need to fit in the piece. Cadenza is a extension of another composer bringing in his own style into the theme.
LOL, in the tradition of cadenz(i) the artist is to "improvise" AND show off...therefore I hardly think you can expect Listzian music from Rachaminoff or any other performer during a cadenza. The Rachmaninoff at least kept the melody lines very well, not so with Hamelin...if you find this "jarring", try Marc Andre Hamelin's cadenza! Find it here: th-cam.com/video/jNVvxM5vg5c/w-d-xo.html
Great recording but I don't care for the cadenza Rachmaninoff incorporated. Just my opinion. It doesn't fall in line with the style of Liszt. Imagination is vast in the human mind. I think he could have written something in the style of Liszt yet still his own.
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.
Completely agree, the same thing happens with Hamelin's cadenza
It's a matter of taste and personal preference. I don't believe for a second that you are actually baffled by the fact that people like different things. :) I can understand if someone finds the juxtaposition of the harmonic language of a folkish 1840s piece and that of Sergei's 1920s magic jarring, and at the same time it is absolutely riveting to have a chance to hear Rachmaninov's response to Liszt's invitation for a cadenza.
Loopp
@@gergelykiss I don't think that he was baffled by people who thought that the cadenza did not "fit in," but rather by their reasoning as to why.
maybe they think it doesn't fit in *because* it strays from the original harmonic ideas (i think that's the right word). Of course I like it, but it's something to at least consider.
"The perfect music collab doesn't exi-"
*crossover perhaps a century*
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.
How does it not match the piece? Even I as an 8yr old boy could tell the cadenza was a clever addition by another composer who wished to embellish if you will and admire this work in their own way before ending. And if anyone else has some dumb conceded comment about a cadenza, I would bet every last layer of the skin off my ass on the coldest day ever that Liszt would absolutely love it. He himself wasn't unknown to transcribe and paraphrase others' works-------now was he?
Ferecz Liszt - Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, S. 244/2
Liszt's Opening [0:00 - 0:31]
Liszt's Lassan [0:31 - 4:23]
Liszt's Friska [4:23 - 8:28]
Rachmaninov's Cadenza [8:28 - 10:35]
Liszt's Cadenza [10:35 - 11:02]
Magnificent cadenza, 8:30. Go Rach!! Never heard or heard of this!
Rachmaninoff please, stahp, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 is already very difficult!
This must have brought down the house the first time people heard this.
Jørgen Oktober Storm Nestande Thyrum REMIX!
Cadenza is fantastique, like the rhapsody went into a fever-dream, distorting through keys & tempos. The rendering is awesome
9:57 I love how Rachmaninoff decided to add a little jazz here
----------------------------------
*Here all parts of the hungarian rhapsody no 2:*
----------------------------------
Opening: 0:00
Lassan: 0:31
Friska: 4:22
Rachmaninoff's Cadenza: 8:28
Finale: 10:35
----------------------------------
*Perfect performance!*
----------------------------------
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?
Because he could? I'm sure it was much fun!
9:47 more like a jazzy style but i love it
The cadenza sounds like a drunk person trying to play the piece, really fun 😁
I read this and listened to it again, it really is. 🤪🤪🤪
@@casual_human 😂😂
No one:
Absolutely no one:
Rachmaninoff: GLISSANDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and SCHERZANDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and some crazy modulations and some atonality and other stuff and all that on a crazy enough motive ohhhhhhh my precious music *laughs in Rachmaninoff*
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.
100%. Хоть кто-то понимает,что и о чём пишет!
Superb work by the great Rach!!
Why the criticism of the cadenza? The critics are unlikely to be able to play it. The performance is the main surprise and to which attention should be paid. A virtuoso pianist new to me with an amazing and outstanding technique. How does Russia breed these pianists? Can anybody confirm whether there were any edits - the tempos are so fast , it is difficult to imagine no errors. My personal view has always been that whilst many pianists can get their fingers around the notes of the Rhapsodies, only a few very top virtuosi such as MAH, Horowitz, Bermann etc can reveal the true original sound or intentions of Liszt. This is why I believe few virtuoso pianists will tackle them in concert as their personal shortcomings will be open for all to see. My point is perhaps clearer if one listens to the Horowitz arrangement or the performance of Cziffra or Rachmaninov - luckily all are available on TH-cam. What a wonderful channel this is.
Why the criticism of the other commenters? They have opinions different from yours, that's all. And being able to play a piece is certainly not a precondition for being allowed to comment on a performance of it. And you can't play it either, so why do you impose rules on others that you don't impose on yourself?
I have always interpreted Rachmaninoff as "this music should be making you _think_ about the material". and think that cadenza thoroughly did I
I like the cadenza on its own, but it's quite jarring in the context of the piece. Rachmaninoff made absolutely no attempt to write this in the style of Liszt (which is what you would traditionally do if you are writing a cadenza meant to be performed within a piece of music), it's Rachmaninoff through and through, sounds like his late style too, which makes it even more jarring. But I still enjoyed hearing it.
+Rory reviewer
Why should it be in the style of Liszt? A cadenza means freely as you feel it.
@@kevin.afton_ Agreed. Liszt, when he taught his students, famously didn't want carbon copies of himself. He stressed individuality (in terms of style) with his students.
What? Traditionally that is absolutely not what a Cadenza is. A cadenza is traditionally not even written out. It is meant to be improvised.
The greatest Cadenzas have an unique style, like Beethoven's and Alkan's Cadenzas for Mozart's Concertos.
Frankly I don't even get why you would use traditionally, cadenzas are very rarely written down. I find it hard to believe you'd have heard some of the greatest pianist of the 19th century perform cadenzas in the traditional way. Those that are written down are totally not what you describe.
@@S.Lijmerd Well, it does say cadenza ad lib. but I agree it should be improvised but not necessarily in the style of Liszt because of the ad lib.
@Hapedise Divide19 Not really, it translates to "at one's pleasure" or "as you desire" and since it is at their pleasure, they are free in how they improvise the cadenza.
I personally like Rachmaninoff much more than Liszt but this cadenza just doesn't fit to this Rhapsody's style. It sounds like another, not connected piece inside the other one :(
Pretty sure Rachmaninoff was just showing his humorous side.
The original piece itself is kinda goofy when compared to a lot of what written during that era (especially the fast section), Sergei just took things a step further. He was also known for having enormous hands similar to Liszt.
While I see what you mean, an unwritten cadenza means that you play freely as you see fit. Also, Liszt (when teaching his students) famously didn't want carbon copies of himself. He stressed individuality, in terms of style, to his students.
Me neither, for me the author of the best cadenza is Hamelin
Cadenza means free style and it doesn't at all need to fit in the piece. Cadenza is a extension of another composer bringing in his own style into the theme.
Bravo brilliance music grandiose virtuoso
Rachmaninoff please, this piece is already technically difficult!
Fantástico! Trabalho mútuo de dois gênios!!
Those glissandos tho
Could Somebody write a midi for this? Or send me the sheet music, cant transcribe it through the video, would be super helpful!
***** By chance, do you know what the dashed line between bars does? The fourth measure at 8:31
Cadenza at 8:28
Wow
LOL, in the tradition of cadenz(i) the artist is to "improvise" AND show off...therefore I hardly think you can expect Listzian music from Rachaminoff or any other performer during a cadenza. The Rachmaninoff at least kept the melody lines very well, not so with Hamelin...if you find this "jarring", try Marc Andre Hamelin's cadenza! Find it here: th-cam.com/video/jNVvxM5vg5c/w-d-xo.html
This is like the romantic version of a polytonal jazz remix of a pop song lol
This cadenza gives me anxiety
Yep, it's from Rachmaninoff
00:30
01:20
04:49
06:32
10:40
4:49
very very interesting piece by Rachmaninov! Yes, it's not Liszt, it's a modern piece.
Can someone explain what is a cadenza?
It's usually an improvised part added to a piece of music using a certain motif. That's basically as simple as it can get
Who framed Roger Rabbit.
They're not wrong...
奧羅憲政路餐廳
把腋毛刮乾淨哦
Interesting, I would like what Beethoven would had made of it.
This cadenza is still weak compared to Hamelin's. A lot more pleasant to listen to though.
Try cateen's cadenza! He did better than hamelin imo
@@ericlego321 His Cadenza was beyond epic
True but you must consider that this was improvised unlike Hamelins which was written beforehand.
@@kohs.3876 Cateen's was just way too good and it really blended with the piece unlike Rach's cadenza.
What an adsolute mad lad
Great recording but I don't care for the cadenza Rachmaninoff incorporated. Just my opinion. It doesn't fall in line with the style of Liszt. Imagination is vast in the human mind. I think he could have written something in the style of Liszt yet still his own.
comedy right here!
Liszt did fine on his own without Rachmanioffs addition.
There is 2 wrong notes ! jajajaja not is important !
You mean the D sharp?..
I was better and i AM still better
no I AM better, you trash
Bruh
ㅈㄴ음침해 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
듣질 말던가
9:56