PART I
The "minorness" of Rachmaninoff's
aesthetics and where (not) to
look for its origins
1. Structural principle and gesture
2. Old and New in Rachmaninoff's
Manuscript
3. Hypertrophy-but not in interpretation
4. Appassionato vs sostenuto
5. Feel-and what to do with it
6. How the “very old composer”
Rachmaninov teaches new things
PART II
Approaching the second
half of the motto
look at the old as the
new and the new as the old
Magdaléna Bajuszová In the name of style or: How (not) to play Rachmaninoff
The "minorness" of Rachmaninoff's aesthetics and where (not) to look for its origins
The subject of Rachmaninoff in the context of artistic research could give the
impression that it is a worn-out, hundreds of times described and unoriginal theme. We all, especially in our youth, play Rachmaninoff, we all want to play Rachmaninoff, and we all know him well. In fact, few composers have faced as many devastating interpretations as he did, few composers have been able to turn themselves into "dough that sticks to your fingers and never rises" (Juraj Beneš, composer, professor of music theory at the Academy of Performing Arts in Bratislava) as a result of interpretative approach. The Rachmaninoff enigma interested me twenty years ago, but even after such a long time I am aware of equally pressing need to contribute to changing the perception of this “lonely offshoot of outmoded Romanticism, a very old composer indeed” - as Stravinsky described Rachmaninoff - into an original and modern composer, as this would contribute greatly to the value of interpretations of his works. But that potential of an original and modern composer has to be seen by us – performers - first. In this chapter I will try to point out numerous moments and explain how the motto look at the old as new can lead to see his work from a fresh point of view.
The "minorness" of Rachmaninoff's aesthetics
and where (not) to look for its origins
In connection with Rachmaninoff, the question of his compositional originality is often raised. He is beloved and revered primarily for his piano compositions, but even then, more as grateful objects of pianistic vanity than as original great works. In my nine years of study, both conservatory and university, he has not been mentioned as a composer, either in music history, music theory or music analysis. Rachmaninoff lies outside the scope of interest because - objectively - he is not one of those who form the unmissable landmarks of the history of musical development.
Discussions of his works usually mention the smoothness and plasticity of the form, the freeflowing, singing melodies and the virtuosic effects, a perfectly unremarkable characteristic applicable to a multitude of other works by a multitude of other composers. A few basic and well-worn leitmotifs can usually be heard about his aesthetic: a late-Romantic emotionally excited musical language of elegiac expression with contemplative musical moods... endless elegy, tragic pessimism, nostalgia for home... The causes of these aesthetic tendencies are to be found in Rachmaninoff's nature and, above all, in the mentality of his nationality and his departure from his homeland. Certainly, the claims that he wrote his best works before leaving Russia or that the Third Symphony owes its sombre mood to Rachmaninoff's nostalgia for home were largely forced and beholden to the Soviet regime in order to be able to write about him at all, to publish sheet music and sound recordings. The problem is that they remained just that, and deeper or more sophisticated analyses never emerged. In general, these platitudes, these simplistic labels have taken hold for many decades or even a century, but unfortunately they have led to a tragic simplification of our whole interpretative approach.
Of course, elegy really is Rachmaninoff's essential hallmark. In correspondence, he
himself confessed to a certain extent to this characteristic of his work: 'I don't do well with light tones!'1
The truth is that minor keys attracted him, he felt best in them, they were the most
appropriate to his language. Rachmaninov can make even such images of unbounded
cheerfulness as the Etude in E flat major, Op. 33, the Prelude in E major, Op. 32, or the Etude in D major, Op. 39, seem unnerving; he unsettles their light-heartedness with overly aggressive, overly abrupt rhythms and menacing waves of sound. In Rachmaninoff, then, the tendency is really not just to minor keys but to dark, minor themes, to a range of images of a dark nature. According to M. Kogan, Rachmaninoff has the highest number of works in the minor key, and the American musicologist Jasser has stated that Rachmaninoff has broken all records of composers in quoting the Dies irae.
These are the minor themes that we notice at first glance, but this tendency manifests itself in multiple layers.
In his music there is a constant presence of a kind of "diabolico", an energy of darkness counteracting pure beauty. But it is precisely this inner activity, dynamism and restlessness that distinguishes him significantly from the passive positions of the
melancholic or nostalgic, that he is often described as. Rachmaninoff has his themes and his gestures, his images and his identifying code, which partly identify him as an artistic décadence. However, in the search for origins and, in particular, for fitting interpretative approaches, one should not remain in the first layer of flattened and simplistic evaluations. Personally, with a little lightness of touch, I find the term "noble desperado" much more appropriatte.
Therefore, in the search for the aesthetics of Rachmaninoff's music, we do not need
annoying and worn-out associations, we need to start from pure music, its own language, its peculiar and autonomous musical world. The music alone possesses sufficient precision of expression. And then, too, one may find that this "nostalgic, late-romantic lyric" is made more interesting by something else entirely: its inventive and intellectually rich musical moments. Therefore, I would like to give attention to a few aspects that are enormously interesting in Rachmaninoff. They are not visible at first sight, but when they are understood, a new world opens up, decisive also for the depth of the interpretation.
1 RACHMANINOFF, Sergei Vasilyevich, Letters, Moscow 1955, p.420
