The Joy of Rachmaninov - BBC4 01 / 01/ 16 21.00

[zola]

Presumably everyone was too busy with Hymnen to watch this ? Worth catching up with on iplayer. Yes, there are irritations, foremost of which is assembling an impressive cast of contributors and then editing them down to about a 30 second snippet each ( Jurowski, Ashkenazy, Hough, Matsuev, Burnside ) But all in all another indicator of a move in the right direction for BBC TV arts broadcasting ? While not learning anything new, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[ChrisBennell]

I decided to catch up with Hymnen later on the iplayer! So I watched and enjoyed the Rachmaninov but I was irritated that a number of major works didn't get proper discussion (although there were snippets of the music broadcast) - including the 2nd symphony and the Symphonic Dances - I felt they were trying too hard to cram it all in to 60 minutes when it needed longer. But I remain grateful for any crumbs of music offered by BBC4!

[zola]

[QUOTE=ChrisBennell;531559] a number of major works didn't get proper discussion (although there were snippets of the music broadcast) - including the 2nd symphony and the Symphonic Dances - I felt they were trying too hard to cram it all in to 60 minutes when it needed longer. /QUOTE]

Yes, they spoke about the influence of bells on Rachmaninov but then omitted any mention of one of his own favourite pieces, The Bells ! With the contributors available the programme could have been two hours but crumbs are welcome nevertheless.

[BBMmk2]

I need to catch up on both! Thanks for the thumbs up here, Zola!

[peterthekeys]

a number of major works didn't get proper discussion (although there were snippets of the music broadcast) - including the 2nd symphony and the Symphonic Dances - I felt they were trying too hard to cram it all in to 60 minutes when it needed longer.

Yes, they spoke about the influence of bells on Rachmaninov but then omitted any mention of one of his own favourite pieces, The Bells ! With the contributors available the programme could have been two hours but crumbs are welcome nevertheless.

I also thoroughly enjoyed this programme, and would have liked it to be longer so they could have included more of the music - I too missed mentions of "The Bells" and the second symphony.

Interesting to hear tributes being paid to the first symphony, and that it seemed to prophesy developments and events in the 20th century (the first time that I - unknowingly - heard any of it was when the end of the finale was used as the theme music for a series of documentaries about the first world war, which was broadcast in the early '60s. Ever since I heard the full work, it's always been one of my all-time favourites.) Incidentally - the pianists on here might be interested that IMSLP have now got a downloadable PDF of the two-piano arrangement of this - almost certainly the original one which was found amongst R's papers after his death, and prompted the search which eventually turned up the orchestral parts, allowing the full score to be reconstructed.

[Serial_Apologist]

I also thoroughly enjoyed this programme, and would have liked it to be longer so they could have included more of the music - I too missed mentions of "The Bells" and the second symphony.

Interesting to hear tributes being paid to the first symphony, and that it seemed to prophesy developments and events in the 20th century (the first time that I - unknowingly - heard any of it was when the end of the finale was used as the theme music for a series of documentaries about the first world war, which was broadcast in the early '60s. Ever since I heard the full work, it's always been one of my all-time favourites.) Incidentally - the pianists on here might be interested that IMSLP have now got a downloadable PDF of the two-piano arrangement of this - almost certainly the original one which was found amongst R's papers after his death, and prompted the search which eventually turned up the orchestral parts, allowing the full score to be reconstructed.

It's usually the (imv) underrated Third Symphony that gets omitted in Rachmaninov resumes - e.g. on COTW last time around.

[peterthekeys]

It's usually the (imv) underrated Third Symphony that gets omitted in Rachmaninov resumes - e.g. on COTW last time around.

Totally agree that the third is underrated - it's a very fine work (although there are parts of the second which I adore, I'm always tempted to view both the first and third as greater works.)

[Mary Chambers]

I enjoyed it much more than I expected to, but would love to have heard more of Stephen Hough's views. He always has something interesting to say. Some fascinating archive footage.

My mother heard Rachmaninoff play, and frequently told us so!

[VodkaDilc]

I have just been looking here to see if the programme is worth sticking with. I've recorded it and have just started watching. So far, despite the interesting bits, I've been tempted three times to give up: James Rhodes spouting nonsense about 'the dude' (were no serious pianists available?), Service 'conducting' the First Symphony, and Service quoting Tolstoy is a silly attempt at a Russion accent. How much better it would have been if Geoffrey Norris had done the whole programme. I know that Rhodes has a contemporary image and can speak like a yob; I suppose the BBC thinks that it can draw in passing viewers with such gimmicks. With hundreds of available channels this 1950s concept is way out of date; only those committed to Rachmaninov would be watching in the first place.

However, eight people here seem to say I should persevere.

[ChrisBennell]

I notice that Tom Service gets another Russian outing tonight on BBC2 - "Leningrad and the Orchestra that defied Hitler" at 21:10 - but this time it's 90 minutes. At first I thought this was a bit disproportionate compared with 60 minutes for all of Rachmaninov - but I guess the Leningrad story has great human and historical interest, as well as the musical interest -. Can I assume the BBC got both programmes out of a "single" trip to Russia?

[Alison]

I have just been looking here to see if the programme is worth sticking with. I've recorded it and have just started watching. So far, despite the interesting bits, I've been tempted three times to give up: James Rhodes spouting nonsense about 'the dude' (were no serious pianists available?), Service 'conducting' the First Symphony, and Service quoting Tolstoy is a silly attempt at a Russion accent. How much better it would have been if Geoffrey Norris had done the whole programme. I know that Rhodes has a contemporary image and can speak like a yob; I suppose the BBC thinks that it can draw in passing viewers with such gimmicks. With hundreds of available channels this 1950s concept is way out of date; only those committed to Rachmaninov would be watching in the first place.

However, eight people here seem to say I should persevere.

Lucy Parham makes it all worthwhile.

[muzzer]

Yes, an hour is simply not enough, but still a worthwhile and informative use of the licence fee, though I agree with much of what's said above. The 2nd Symph is one of my all time fave pieces and deserved more. IMHO.

[Conchis]

I have just been looking here to see if the programme is worth sticking with. I've recorded it and have just started watching. So far, despite the interesting bits, I've been tempted three times to give up: James Rhodes spouting nonsense about 'the dude' (were no serious pianists available?), Service 'conducting' the First Symphony, and Service quoting Tolstoy is a silly attempt at a Russion accent. How much better it would have been if Geoffrey Norris had done the whole programme. I know that Rhodes has a contemporary image and can speak like a yob; I suppose the BBC thinks that it can draw in passing viewers with such gimmicks. With hundreds of available channels this 1950s concept is way out of date; only those committed to Rachmaninov would be watching in the first place.

However, eight people here seem to say I should persevere.

Rhodes REALLY irritated me in this programme but I suppose he was there for 'da yoof.'

[VodkaDilc]

Rhodes REALLY irritated me in this programme but I suppose he was there for 'da yoof.'

And they would obviously be watching a documentary on a Russian composer who died decades before they were born. I suppose someone involved in the production thought they were making it accessible.

Service was little better. Did anyone else cringe when he said something along the lines of (pointing at statue of Lenin): "Then this guy arrived and Rachmaninov had to scarper…….. pronto." Not the exact words, but the three highlighted ones were certainly used. Does slang from some decades in the past make the subject more approachable?

[Stunsworth]

Rhodes REALLY irritated me in this programme but I suppose he was there for 'da yoof.'

Not sure that a 40 year old is suited for that.