Jump to content

Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Music Samples - Complaint

The Ashkenazy performance of the Rach 3 with Previn that is used as a smaple of Rachmaninov's music, is, in my opinion an insignificant and lethargic interpretation of the piece. It's not even Ashkenazy at his best. I think a recording of Rachmaninov himself, or Horowitz with Reiner, or even BOTH would be preferable to the current sample.

- I so much agree with that. Although i am a fan of Ashkenazy, i don't like his Rachmaninoff- Piano Concerto No.3. I would prefer Boris Berezovsky's.

Transliteration of Name

An anon just changed the "Rachmaninov"s in this article to "Rachmaninoff"s, pointing to http://home.flash.net/~park29/rachspell.htm as justification.

Now, I don't care which way we spell it (neither is more correct than the other - they're both legitimate trasliterations and they're both commonly used), but the title of the article ought to be consistent with the spelling we use in the article itself. So, if I move this page to Sergei Rachmaninoff, will there be any complaints? Normally I'd just do it, but there's quite a few redirects pointing here, and it's going to be a bit of a hassle updating them all in the event of an edit war... --Camembert

That site seems to make a good case. Google shows 245,000 hits for "Rachmaninoff" and 293,000 for "Rachmaninov", so although it seems a minority spelling it seems not to be so by that wide a margin. Anyone who feels strongly enough about changing it, however, IMO should do the work of fixing the redirects. -- Infrogmation 03:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Google shows more hits for "Sergei Rachmaninov" than it does for "Sergei Rachmaninoff". I suspect that this is a more accurate measure than just looking for the surname alone, which is obviously not unique to this person. --Rebroad 18:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon editor, I reverted the cut & paste placing the existing article at "Rachmaninoff" -- that looses the article history. If a page is to be moved, the "move page" function needs to be used. Understand that I personally have no objection to having the article at the "off" spelling, but moves need to be done properly. -- Infrogmation 21:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about we give it a week, and if there are no serious objections, properly move the article to "Sergei Rachmaninoff"? -- Infrogmation 17:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was planning. If you want to do it, save me a job, that's great :) --Camembert

It seems no one has objected, so I will delete the "off" redirect and move the page here. Help in changing links to our new spelling appreciated. -- Infrogmation 23:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I'm almost a year off, but I thought I might as well add that the composer himself spelled it "Rachmaninoff". TheProject 15:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only after he moved to the West and found that the original spelling was causing people to mis-pronounce his name. --Rebroad 18:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Transliteration is an exceedingly vexed, contentious and controversial topic. Suffice to say there is ultimately no "right" or "wrong" transliteration from one language/alphabet into another, it's all a matter of convention and context. But when it comes to transliteration of personal names, the individual concerned surely has rights that supersede those of mere linguists. Whatever the reason, if "Rachmaninoff" really was his chosen spelling of his own name, I believe the world should respect that. Like, if my name were Smith but I chose to spell it as Smyytthe, nobody has the right to "correct" it. Another example: Wassily Kandinsky - his first name is obviously pronounced "Vasily" (as per the Russian), but the spelling is what he himself chose - so that's it. Cheers JackofOz 22:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The majority of record companies spell it "Rachmaninov", and that's probably what most users will search for. - Eyeresist 07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the person who changed everything to the "off" spelling, and also the schmuck who tried to move it the newly spelled page without using the page move feature you speak of. Sorry! I didn't know about that. As for the spelling, the biggest point for me is that the composer himself spelt his name ending in "off". --Lousyd

Welcome. Well, we do encourage newcomers to be bold in making improvements, but one effect is that when well intentioned boldness messes something up, it may wind up being reverted. Well, if you'd like to give a hand, check "what links here" and help change the link to "Rachmaninoff" after I move the article to that spelling. -- Infrogmation 23:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to make it so when you searched Rakhmaninow (the Russian way of spelling his name), it would redirect you to this article. I followed the directions, but I ended up writing something in the article (Right before the box that links you to all the sections of the article), and now I can't get it out. Could somebody help with this? Zade77 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a redirect for you with the spelling "Rakhmaninow". In order to do this, one needs to make a new page that has the code that makes the browser go to the "Sergei Rachmoninoff" page (or whatever page you're trying to redirect to). Did you follow the directions on this page? Feel free to ask questions if I am unclear. Adso de Fimnu 22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, cannot believe you folks are even having a discussion of the merit of spelling the composer's name with the -off suffix. Check Wikipedia's own Transliteration table where you will find seven systems that all specify "v" as the character that corresponds to the Russian character "в". Or how about the Conventional transcription of Russian names that follows. It also specifies "v". Nevermind the fact that more than 99% of all the journalists, libraries, and internet sources use -ov for names ending in -ов. I thought the -off spelling went away in the 50's! There are only two good reasons to prefer the -off spelling. First, it is a "pronouncing spelling" (as opposed to a transliteration). The name is pronounced -off because in Russian (and German by the way) voiced consonants (b, d, g, v, z) in the final position become voiceless (p, t, k, f, s). This probably explains the second reason for spelling it that way -- the composer apparently used it. However, he lived in an imperfect world where people don't take the time to learn anything about other cultures. We don't bother to respell French and German names to make it easier for lazy Americans to pronounce -- why change Russian names? Reasons to spell it -ov abound. It's a transliteration for one. It's consistent. The composer has two "в" characters in his middle name "Vasilyevich", and both are (surprise) always spelled with "v". It's scientific and systematic. You don't have to remember each person's personal spelling idiosyncrasies. Finally, the weight of authority is on the side of -ov. The Grove Dictionary of Music uses "Rakhmaninov" if I am not mistaken. This is clearly the best spelling we're going to have for some time. If you want to debate a worthy spelling issue, talk about "kh" versus "ch". That -off spelling is positively antediluvian. Ivan Velikii 03:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Grove Dictionary of Music also said in the 1950s that his music sucked. Fashions in transliteration will change, but one thing will always be the same: Rachmaninoff chose to spell his name with an "off". We should respect his decision. It isn't up to Wikipedia to transliterate from the Russian: "Rachmaninoff" doesn't even need to be seen as a transliteration that Wikipedians choose to make from Russian, it's simply a report of the name that the composer used for the second half of his career when he lived in the US and Europe. Even when he lived in Russia, his music was published (in French, the language of the Russian upper class of the time) as "Rachmaninoff", written in Roman characters not Cyrillic. Grover cleveland 08:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
First let me say I am not trying to pick a fight. Second, I don't expect to see any progress made on the spelling of Rachmaninoff on account of my argument. You cannot overcome the tyranny of the majority on Wikipedia, no matter how valid your point is. I'm just belatedly putting my two cents in. A couple more remarks however, if you don't mind: The critics at Grove Dictionary have removed their collective heads from their asses since the 50's -- is there currently a more respected and comprehensive single source of information for classical music? I believe all Russian names ending in -ov used to be spelled -off, accounting for the reason Rachmaninov used it. Do we even know whether he had a preference or was just following a trend which is now considered archaic? The point about the influence of French is very appropriate. It is my perception that Russian names experience a form of "linguistic colonialism", often appearing in the form of the language of the enlightened Western European country that first tamed the crude Slavic beast. I think the -off spelling is a vestige of this phenomenon. I don't like "Scriabin", "Moussorgsky", or "Diaghilev" (all Gallicized, if I am not mistaken) for the same reason. I think it is chauvinistic to maintain them. These names should be able to stand alone in their unadulterated (Anglo-)Slavic forms of "Skryabin", "Musorgsky" (Musorgskiy is even better), and Dyagilev (pronounced "Dyagileff"). I think ignorance, tradition, and inertia are responsible for the continued misspelling of many Russian names. Anyway, stepping off the soapbox, the French have evolved in one respect -- they now spell it Rachmaninov (at least on Wikipedia). If Rakhmaninov were alive, I believe he would just be happy that people still listen to his music, and care enough about his name to spell it in a manner more respectful of his Russian roots. Just my opinion...

Ivan Velikii 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the "off" spelling comes from French, which as we know was the second language of the Russian pre-Revolutionary aristocracy. Another good example of a French-influenced spelling is Tchaikovsky. A lot of music dictionaries today prefer to spell his name as Chaykovsky or something similar, which makes it very hard to look things up alphabetically... I don't see why use of the French-influenced spellings should be seen as "linguistic colonialism". English spelling is replete with words that are just spelt the way they are because of some random historical reason. For example, if you have ever been to England as a tourist, you may have noticed the strange spellings and pronunciations of many English cities, such as Worcester, Leicester, Norwich, etc. The spellings don't reflect the way the names of these cities are pronounced today, but rather the way they were pronounced many centuries ago. This all makes English a very difficult language to learn as a non-native speaker, but it's also part of the language's richness. The fact that many Russian names were introduced into English via French is just another of those historical facts... My two cents. Grover cleveland 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My goodness! I would not have expected to see such a fierce debate as to the transliteration of a composer's name; nevertheless, I think I have to agree with what seems to be the majority opinion here, namely the "-off" spelling. As someone else kindly pointed out, this is the way the composer ultimately chose to spell his name. Regardless of how the record companies, linguists, etc. spell it, I think Rachmaninoff himself is the only authority on the matter that really counts: after all, it is his name. I think we really do have to go with what he himself chose and what we currently have. --Todeswalzer|Talk 18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Everyone, I'm sorry to reopen this debate, but the decision we've reached is the wrong one. Wikipedia has a policy! I'm surprised to see people claiming that 'what matters is how Rachmaninov spelled his name'; on the contrary, that's precisely what doesn't matter, and it is entirely 'up to wikipedia to transliterate the Russian'. Rach. was a Russian aristocrat, and like all of his peers, he spoke French, the cultural language of choice in Europe. The spelling he used reflects that, and doesn't represent some kind of informed choice; the existence of this French spelling also explains why a Google search for '-off' turns up so many hits - they're just non-anglophone sources. The standard transliteration of Russian names exists to be just that, a standard. If Wikipedia is to be considered a serious reference work, alongside print sources (and all modern print sources will use the '-ov' ending), it needs a) to reflect current scholarly usage, and b) to be consistent: how can we have 'Rachmaninoff' alongisde Prokofiev, Lermontov, Goncharov, Turgenev and so on? Editing Wikipedia isn't about theorizing and promoting your own orthographic hobbyhorse. It's about abiding by the basic rules of scholarly writing, a set of which exists to cover Russian transliteration, as pointed out by Ivan Velikii. Spelling Rachmaninov's name 'Rachmaninov' doesn't involve a massive alpahbetical shift (as 'Chaikovskii' would, for instance): all respectable sources spell it like this already. Why not wikipedia? Ajcounter 09:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there AJ. Sorry -- your arguments in favor of "Rachmaninov" are incoherent. The "standard" transliteration you endorse would result in "RaKhmaninov" which is indeed used by Grove (it would seem strange that Grove doesn't figure in your mysterious list of "all respectable sources"!). However, Wikipedia's own policy (which you mention but don't seem to have read) says that a conventional name, where available, should be preferred to a transliteration. Rachmaninoff, who spent the last twenty-six years of his life living and making his career in the US and Europe, had ample time to establish his own convention, which he did by consistently using the "Rachmaninoff" spelling. It's even on his gravestone (which conspicuously lacks any Cyrillic characters) [1]. What reasons he had for this choice are beside the point: it was his choice and we should respect it. As for the inconsistency with Lermontov etc., English spelling is rife with inconsistency (as I've pointed out earlier in this thread). None of those other Russians spent as much time in the West as Rachmaninoff did, and thus (with the possible exception of Prokofiev) they did not have a chance to establish their own preference for transliteration. As you yourself admit, strict adherence to standard transliteration principles would result in something like "Chaikovskii" rather than "Tchaikovsky" -- but I don't see you (or anyone) arguing with the same degree of vehemence on that article's talk page -- I wonder why? Grover cleveland 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. And you're right - though I have read the policy, I perhaps hadn't read it as attentively as I might have done. Nevertheless, I still think it's weird to ignore what's clearly the spelling used in the majority of cases. But I guess I'll have to overcome my emotions and move on with my life, somehow. And damn, the man could write a tune. Ajcounter 23:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Name in Cyrillic

How should his name be written in Cyrillic? Guaka 13:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Сергей Рахманинов

Biography

It would be good if we could seperate the Biography passage into smaller sections such as "Childhood" "Teenage" you name it. This would make the article more appealing to read than just a big hunk of text. Dont you think? - Faerun

I don't think that there's much difference between the two, but do you have enough specific information about both to warrant separating it? --OFX 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, is the information outstanding and important enough to justify the separation? --OFX 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

pianoparadise.com

Discuss whether this site should be added as an external link Rachmaninov MP3 download audio MP3 files of his major works for free.

Thank you for modifying every post I make, I am not asking for only YOUR opinion, which is why I posted this in discussion. You are wrong becuase audio is working just fine. You also say that classical MP3's should be searched on google, not WP, yet what is this link:

Maybe we should remove all links pointing to free audio mp3's? Evidently you can't have it both ways.

No, Wikipedia is not a link dump or a place off which you can score resellers' commission. You have spammed a number of other composers' articles with links to this site, which merely serves as a link factory to amazon and sheetmusic sellers. The MP3s aren't even on the site; they also just link to one or two external sites. And the biographies just seem like copies of wikipedia content. It adds absolutely no value in my opinion, and those in search of classical MP3s can use google if they really want to find music. Dewet 15:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me Mr. Dewet, but have you really tried the page out? The reason I ask is because NOTHING of what you said is true! The page is actually quite stunning. You can listen to a vast amount of classical piano music online. Rachmaninov, Fauré, Ravel etc. There are NO pop ups as you say. Right now I'm listening to Rachmaninov's Prelude in G major. The sound quality is surprisingly good. I can't understand what the fuzz is all about. Doesn't wikipedia want to expand the amount of free-source information on the web? If someone reading about Rachmaninov has the chance to actually HEAR some of his music, wouldn't that be the perfect dictionary? Check it out, and reconsider. We do not live in the Dark Ages anymore. Time to step out of the box. Regards - Rich

I think that that last post by Rich was unnecessarily hostile and almost personal attack on Dewet. Dewet makes some valid points. Wikipedia was created to "expand the amount of free-source information..(at least to my understanding)" but although relevant, links to clips of Rachmaninoff's music does not necessarily contribute to the article as a whole. I think they would do better here. --OFX 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Style / works

I added a big chunk of new information on his style and works. I made a new section for his style because I think it's an obvious facet his music. --Dri3s 03:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Rakhmaninov write anything in a major key? I'm sure he must have, but for the life of me, I can't think of anything, nor can I imagine what it would sound like. --3-13-06
The eighteenth variation on a theme of Paganini, of course. Also, listen to the Vespers. Granted, they're not all Rachmaninoff's melodies, but they certainly are his work as a whole.Adso de Fimnu 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
His 24 Piano Preludes consist of one piece in every key, like Chopin's. Therefore half of them (12) are in major keys. The Vespers and some of the songs are also in the major key. Grover cleveland 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Off the top of my head: how about the third movement of his Symphony No. 2; the fourth movement of the same work; the second movement of the Second Piano Concerto. . . ? Emoll 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

US Citizenship

When did he become an American citizen? JackofOz 01:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know the answer to this? I'm looking for a date if possible. JackofOz 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A web search on "Rachmaninoff becomes us citizen" turned up this link: [2]., which gives the year as 1943 (no date though). Here is another link which puts his citizenship at "five months before his death", which would make it in late 1942. So I guess that narrows it down to late 1942/early 1943. Google is often faster than asking people on talk pages :) Grover cleveland 15:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it is. The only reasonable explanation is that I googled, unsuccessfully, before I posted the question. Thanks for narrowing the search down anyway. JackofOz 13:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
February 1, 1943, as written in wife's recollections [3] Goudzovski 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah ha! Thank you so much. 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reputation as a pianist vs. composer

From the introduction:

While his reputation as composer only came later in life, Rachmaninoff's skill as pianist was well-known and highly respected; he often performed his own works as soloist.

I am pretty sure that this is backwards. Rachmaninoff only started to play piano full-time after he emigrated to the U.S. In Russia he was known mainly as a composer and conductor. I don't have time to look for references now but when I do I'll correct this.

Grover cleveland 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hand span

The Guinness Book of Records (1986 edition) says he had the greatest recorded span, which covered 12 white notes and he could play a left hand chord of C, E flat, G, C, G. This does not seem to appear in later editions. JackofOz 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what is meant by "His large handspan roughly corresponded with his height"? I'm 6'4" and my span is 10". 213.83.125.109 12:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

American Composer

According to this entry, he became an American citizen only a month before his death. That's why I think that we shouldn't insist in his "American condition". User:Mistico

So what? He was a composer and he was an American citizen. What's more, he lived in the US for half his professional career. I'm putting it back. Grover cleveland 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to put it back as you can see. I was just questioning if it was right to include him in the two american categories he's in, since he was an american citizen for such a few time. He lived many time in USA, but before his naturalization, he was a foreigner living in USA. If he had been an American citizen for at least a year I would have no objection about him. User:Mistico

I agree with Mistico. This entry is the only place I have seen Rachmaninoff referred to as an American composer. He was trained in Russia, in the Russian tradition, and always wrote recognizably Russian music. The vast majority of his opus numbers were composed before his emigration to the USA. Likewise, I do not think of Stravinsky and Bartok as American composers, even though both men ended their days in the USA and composed major works there. That he delayed his naturalization as long as he did suggests that he hoped a change in political regime would enable him to return to Russia. 202.36.179.65 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Stravinsky is also categorized as an American composer, as is Schoenberg (who also became an American citizen). Vladimir Horowitz is categorized as an American pianist as well. When someone takes the decision to naturalize (which in the US, for what it's worth, has always entailed a renunciation of any prior citizenship), I think it's quite reasonable to take them at their word. In addition, categories are meant to be inclusive: see WP:CAT. Categorizing Rachmaninoff as American doesn't prevent him from being classified as Russian as well. Grover cleveland 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Name That Tune

I honestly don’t know where else to ask, so… is the theme music on the Daily Source Code a remix of something by Rachmaninoff? It plays at the beginning and end of most episodes, accompanied by some guy saying “The power of pure intellect.” —Frungi 20:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Found it. It’s a remix of a performance of “Vocalise” (14th song of Op. 34, Fourteen Songs). —Frungi 19:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"RACH-man-in-OFF"

I was confused by this: "Rachmaninoff ended some of his major works musically with a rhythmic pattern - a long, two shorts and a long (as in the endings of the Second and Third Piano Concertos) or three shorts and a long (as in the ending of the Second Symphony), which is sometimes thought to relate to the prononunciation of his surname (RACH-man-in-OFF)." My impression was that all Russian words, including names, have a single stressed syllable, and that in the case of Rach., it's the second. Who has suggested that this might be the significance of the recurrent rhythmic idea? Ajcounter 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried to pronounce R's name in a way that sounds a little like the last four notes of Piano Concerto No.2 and I'm now well and truly convinced of two things. First, that's not how you say the name (it's ridiculous); and second, even if that were how the name was pronounced, the 'pom-pa-pa-pom' ending is so totally banal that it would be impossible to link it with a particular composer's signature. I'm getting rid of it. Ajcounter 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Recording the second symphony

He also wanted to record his second symphony; instead Ormandy recorded it in an abridged version that was used for many years. (Ormandy finally recorded the uncut second symphony in 1973 for RCA Victor.)

I've never heard this story before. The reference must be to the 1934 Ormandy Minneapolis Symphony recording of the Second Symphony. Is there any evidence that this recording was a "substitute" for a recording by Rachmaninoff himself? The claim that "an abridged version ... was used for many years" itself is misleading because there were many different versions (all heavily cut) used in early recordings of this symphony: different recordings tended to use different combinations of cuts. I'm deleting the reference to Ormandy for these reasons. Grover cleveland 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This story seems less and less plausible the more I think about it. In 1934 Ormandy was still near the beginning of his career and the Minneapolis Symphony was perceived as a provincial band. There is no conceivable reason why RCA would have chosen to record the symphony with Ormandy in Minneapolis instead of Rachmaninoff in Philadelphia. Grover cleveland 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The first recording of the Second Symphony was by the Cleveland Orchestra under the direction of Nikolai Sokoloff. IIRC, it was recorded in 1928 for the Brunswick label. Sokoloff recorded a cut version he had worked out with the composer. THD3 23:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are of course correct. However I think Brunswick was a separate label from RCA, so they would have a motivation to make their own recording with Ormandy. Incidentally I just realized that this was Ormandy's first ever symphonic recording! Grover cleveland 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


A Window in Time CD Albums

It gets mentioned that at least one of his recordings is available now on CD, however there are two "A Window in Time" CDs and a 2nd Piano Concerto recording on CD. The first are from reproducing piano, while the second seems to be standard recording technology at the time.

Return to Russia

It would be a good idea to make arrangements to return Rachmaninoff's remains to Russia. Perhaps someone with some kind of influence reading this, can get the ball rolling. Dr. Dan 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? His grandson Alexandre Rachmaninoff lives in Switzerland and France. As far as I'm aware none of his family still lives in Russia. Did he express a wish to have his remains interred there? Grover cleveland 07:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously Rachmaninoff's wishes and those of his family, would supercede our opinions, Grover, however I think there is enough evidence to pursue the question. There are many examples of posthumous returns of great national figures, who died abroad and in exile. Rachmaninoff fits the bill. Dr. Dan 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this isn't what Wikipedia is all about. We're not some sort of advocacy service. Our influence comes from the high quality of the articles we write, which often contain material that is not generally known to the public. What our readers do with that information is a matter for them. If there were some external campaign to repatriate Rachmaninoff's remains, and there was a citable record of that campaign, we could include reference to it in his article. But we cannot initiate such campaigns, or even be a party to them. We simply record and chronicle the works of others - that is our work. -- JackofOz 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

2 questions:

  1. In the list of compositions by Rachmaninoff a list of his transcriptions misses, e.g. Rachmaninoff's transcription of Rimsky-Korsakovs Flight of the Bumble Bee for piano.
  2. I "found" a composition by Rachmaninoff entitled "Ne poi, krasavitsa!". It was played on cello (you can listen it at [http://www.cellist.nl cellist.nl , audioplayer (in the left bar), first recording). Does anybody know this composition, for I can't find it back in the article. Coeshee 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The composition "Ne poi, krasavitsa!" is a song. You can find it in the List of compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff, under Op. 4, Six Songs for voice and piano (1890-1893). It is Sing not to me, beautiful maiden
--Atavi 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question. In a week or two I will start translating the list of Rachmaninoffs compositions for the Dutch Wikipedia, but the list is incomplete without Rachmaninoffs transcriptions. Do you know where I can find a list like that? Coeshee 09:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome.
You're right that the piano transcriptions are an omission. I did a web search and came up with this: link. You can use it to extract information about the transcriptions Rachmaninoff did.--Atavi 10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

82.224.171.165 has just added a new resource to the list of links at the bottom of the article. I had a quick look and the first thing I noticed was his birth date is shown as "2 April 1873". This is incorrect. By the old calendar he was born on 20 March 1873, which translates to 1 April 1873 in the new calendar, because there was a 12-day gap in the 19th century (or to be more precise, between 1 March 1800 and 28 February 1900). From 1 March 1900 the gap increased to 13 days, but this is irrelevant because Rachmaninoff was born in 1873. -- JackofOz 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky's death

Can someone give me a source or explanation on what the effects of Tchakovsky's death- with some sort of reference (I don't care about online citations, but something to direct me towards an observable change in his musicality)? --Alegoo92 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the most immediate impact on Tchaikovsky's musicality was that it ended, permanently. But since this is posted on the Rachmaninoff talk page, I guess you're talking about the effect of Tchaikovsky's death on Rachmaninoff's music. I can't say I've ever read anything about this. Rach was a great admirer of Tchaikovsky, but I can't see how his death per se would have changed his influence on Rachmaninoff's music. He was influenced by the music of Tchaikovsky - which was unchanged by his death - not by Tchaikovsky personally. But it's an interesting question all the same. -- JackofOz 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RachmaninoffOrmandy.jpg

Image:RachmaninoffOrmandy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==Composers Project Assessment of Sergei Rachmaninoff: 2008-11-14==

This is an assessment of article Sergei Rachmaninoff by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?

  • Good

===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Good

===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Good

===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.

  • Good

===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?

  • Good

===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)

  • Good, but could use some more.

===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?

  • Good, but footnoting may not yet be good enough for picky GA

===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)

  • Good. Length may be FA issue.

===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review===

  • Article may require more (or better placed) footnotes (WP:CITE)
  • Article may require more imagery
  • Article has outstanding {{fact}} and {{who?}} tags

===Summary=== This is a fine article. It is probably good enough to nominate for GA once the few fact/who? tags are addressed -- it will probably require some work to pass, but I doubt it will be quick-failed.

Parts of the article could use images. Not necessarily of Rachmaninoff, there are plenty of him in the article. Images of the places and people mentioned, or score autographs would be appropriate. Photos of piano rolls in that section...

The biographic portion seems long, given that there is a separate article devoted to his life. More summary style application may be useful. Other parts of the article might be forkable, like the sections on Recordings and Pianism.

The section on Marfan Syndrome seems out of place; should it merged into the Pianism section?

I think this is A-class material. Magic♪piano 16:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

==Yes but....== Magic♪piano, I agree with nearly all of the points you make, but I don't think this quite makes the A level. The article as a whole seems to me an advocacy of Rachmaninoff rather than an NPOV survey, and there is some awkward sloppiness in the context. Can we allow such sentences as the following, for example, in the header paragraphs?:

Rachmaninoff sometimes felt threatened by the success of modernists such as Scriabin and Prokofiev and wondered whether to cease composing even before he left Russia.[5] His musical philosophy was rooted in the Russian spiritual tradition, where the role of the artist was to create beauty and to speak the truth from the depths of his heart.[6]

Was Scriabin a 'modernist' (whatever that may mean in music - the WP article is 95% or more about the visual arts it seems)? What is the meaning, if any, of the second sentence, a breathy piece of romanticism in itself from Figes (who incidentally is not cited in the bibliography, so we don't know where this quote is from or what may be its context).

Elsewhere the article seems to me excessively defensive of Rachmaninoff (e.g. going out of its way to attack Glazunov as an alcoholic where an early Rach. work fails under the former's baton), I shudder when WP writers use the word 'Incidentally' suggesting 'just between you and me' and nearly always preceding some piece of OR or other contestable statement ('Incidentally, it might not have been a coincidence that the two pieces Rachmaninoff singled out for praise from Rubinstein's concerts became cornerstones for his own recital programs.). For me this article is all a bit too sugary to promote into A class - a little astringency would improve it - to get it to somewhere between Harold Schonberg and the 1954 edition of Grove :-}.

The 1980 edition of Grove btw summarizes R. as having 'a highly individual, lyrical idiom which, if it has not had any important lasting development of Russian music, nevertheless is characterised by sincere expression and skilful technique'. The question of R's legacy (or lack of it) is not touched on in the article and needs to be referred to if you want to move to A. Of course you may want to take account, in assessing my assessment, that my evaluation of R. is closer to the coolness of Grove 1980 than to the warmth of the article!!

--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very good at spotting POV-type problems (among other likely deficiencies). This is one reason I like second opinions on my reviews. Thanks. Magic♪piano 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I recommend somebody nominate this for featured status, it's a pretty good article.--Cloak' 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry/Last name?

Well as my understanding of Russian naming conventions goes, Rachmaninov is the son of Rachman or Rachmani. Rachman isn't a Russian name, is it? And if it's son of Rachmani, then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the last name of his ancestor was Rachmani. Is Rachman the same as the Persian Rahman, or just a homonym?

Not that simple. Rachmaninoff is a descendant of an old Moldavian 'Gospodars' (Princes) family, which roots are in XIV century. One of his direct ancestors was called Rachmanin. Semimartingale (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

The spelling of names originally written in cyrillic characters mostly follows the rules where the person first received documents in our latin characters. With composers it often follows the rules of the language where the publisher of the music is. The -ov ending is preferred in Englisch, -off in French, -ow in German. The throat sound best described as kh is -ch in German for instance. The -ski or -sky ending is kind of interchangable in our world.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sergei Rachmaninoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

  • In the 2009-2010 school year, Decatur Central's Marching Band had a show, based around Sergei Rachmaninoff's Symphony no. 2. The show was entitled "Escape".
  • Rachmaninoff owned two New York Steinways D-274 in his Beverly Hills home on Elm Drive, he also owned a New York D in his New York home, however, in 1933, he chose a Hamburg D for his new home, villa Senar, in Switzerland. [citation needed]
  • According to the son of aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky, Rachmaninoff met Sikorsky in 1923, and after studying his designs, handed him a check for $5,000 (roughly $61,000 in 2007 dollars), saying "I believe in you, I trust you, pay me back when you can, go, start building your airplanes."[citation needed]
  • Rachmaninoff once accompanied the gypsy singer Nadezhda Plevitskaya. Their 1926 recordings of "Powder and Paint" and "The Little Apple" were not released for decades.
  • The tune of "Never Gonna Fall In Love Again," also released by Eric Carmen, is based on the main theme of the adagio, played on solo clarinet, of the third movement of Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony in E Minor.
  • The melody of "Full Moon and Empty Arms", a popular song from 1945, is a theme from the last movement of his Piano Concerto No. 2.
  • Rachmaninoff is an important influence on Matt Bellamy of Muse, as illustrated in songs such as "Space Dementia," "Megalomania,", "Butterflies and Hurricanes." and "Hoodoo".[citation needed]

Rachmaninoff was aware of the appeal of this melody, reportedly saying of it "This one is for my agent."[1]

  • His Piano Concerto No. 2 was also featured in the anime Nodame Cantabile, with the piano solo played by Shinichi Chiaki, and the orchestra conducted by Franz von Stresemann.
  • Movements II and III of his Piano Concerto No. 2 are featured in the film Center Stage.
  • A comparison of the creative trajectories of Rachmaninov and Scriabin has fueled psychoanalytic speculation on the distinction between talent and genius.[2]

Removed until an idea of what to do with it comes forth. I'm integrating the film portrayals and perhaps some mentions, but I don't know what to do with the rest. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles ALTON .ıl 09:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You people are retarded. You have a citation needed flag on the lives of the composers thing

THE CITATION IS IN THE TEXT NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A GODDAMN FOOTNOTE. IT FUCKING SAYS: SCHONBERG LIVES OF THE GREAT COMPOSERS

87.102.73.123 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs

  1. ^ Steinberg, Michael (2000). The Concerto: A Listener's Guide (First paperback edition ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 369. ISBN 0195139313. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  2. ^ E.E. Garcia (2004): Rachmaninoff and Scriabin: Creativity and Suffering in Talent and Genius. Psychoanalytic Review, 91: 423–42.

Merge with Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge request. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Don't move, two editors, including me, have strong opinions against this. ALTON .ıl 21:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dmiat (talk · contribs) proposes a merge with Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff.

  • Oppose, as creator etc. The article is totally different, starting from the lead down, although it is a copy from the existent biography it is also a work in progress. Important figures such as Ludwig van Beethoven have Beethoven's biography and Franz Liszt has a page talking about his later works only. I think these supporting articles greatly add to the depth that you can achieve with this article, because most of the detailed information would be cut on the main page (in the spirit of "summary style"). The "Upbringing" section, for example, is cut to a few sentences mentioning nothing about his dead sisters and the importance of his grandmother. Merging would lose so much of this valuable content. ALTON .ıl 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as a pianist who plays Rachmaninoff. He was a really unique figure who experienced so much that could be enough for several full lives. His greatness comes to one's awareness gradually with exposure to his music, his letters, his pianos, and places where he grew up, studied, worked, and died. Two articles give a better scope for showing such a complex and important figure, especially for describing Rachmaninoff from two different prospectives, one for a biography, and one for career, compositions and heritage. He was instrumental in many important cultural and business developments, gave the start-up capital to Igor Sikorsky for aviation industry, funded music school in Paris, funded Michael Chekhov's acting seminars in Europe, then introduced Chekhov to Hollywood, helped the family of Vladimir Nabokov, donated to churches in Paris, New York, and Los Angeles, gave charitable performances in many countries, including at Steinway Halls, and, of course he helped many musicians together with Vladimir Horowitz. Two different articles may eventually provide a more comprehensive coverage of Rachmaninoff as a multifaceted person, his complex life, his concert career, creativity and cultural impact. Steveshelokhonov 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

a question

why does the brass sound so off on the recording of piano concerto number 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.7.130 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Many things are off. However, we are fortunate that we have any recording of the piece since it is a huge endeavor, and if I was ever able to play it I would surely not license it as freely as Wikipedia requires. ALTON .ıl 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

double-jointed?

According to this BBC article [4], "Rachmaninov was thought to be double jointed". Does anyone have any other sources that back that claim (or specifically mention experts' theories, even if not 100% proven)? If so, it would be an interesting piece of info to add. DuckMaestro —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC).

Composer project review

This article has been reviewed as part of the Composers project review of B-class articles. My review is on the comment page. If you have questions or comments, feel free to respond there, here, or on my talk page. I think this article qualifies for A-class. Magic♪piano 16:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Qualms about the quote in Presence

We provide a quote about Rubinstein and say it could easily be mistaken for a Rachmaninoff review. I don't like this approach at all.

  • Firstly, who says it could "easily be mistaken"? That might be the case taken out of context, but if read in its original context, it would be clear that it's Rubinstein the writer's writing about.
  • Secondly, it's only one person's opinion that these words might apply also to Rachmaninoff, which brings it into the area of OR. Why not find a quote actually about Rachmaninoff, rather than making an unrelated quote do work it was never meant to do.
  • Thirdly, if the words do apply to Rachmaninoff, then ipso facto they could not apply to Rubinstein, because it starts out "No artist has ever shown to his audiences so merciless a front", which excludes all of Rachmaninoff's predecessors, including Rubinstein.
  • Fourthly, I can make no sense of "At first sight one is conscious stern".
  • Fifthly, it gives a one-sided impression of his character. He was not as uncompromising as we would have our readers believe, as this quote from the liner notes (written by R. D. Darrell) to my VOX set of Michael Ponti's complete Rachmaninoff piano music attests:
The composer himself was more down to earth (revealing the vein of dry humour familiar to his close friends but unsuspected by the public) in a letter to Medtner, 21 December 1931: "I've played the Corelli Variations about fifteen times, but of these fifteen performances only one was good. The others were sloppy. I can't play my own compositions! And it's so boring! Not once have I played these all in continuity. I was guided by the coughing of the audience. Whenever the coughing would increase, I would skip the next variation. Whenever there was no coughing, I would play them in the proper order. In one concert, I don't remember where - some small town - the coughing was so violent that I played only ten variations (out of 20). My best record was set in New York, where I played 18 variations. However, I hope that you will play all of them, and won't 'cough'". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles? Merge redux

The question above actually brings to light a major problem with having separate articles, both appearing to give the main points of the subject's life. Who gets to decide whether a particular piece of new information is important enough for Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff, but not important enough for Sergei Rachmaninoff? It would baffle me. There was a discussion (above) about keeping these articles separate, but there was never one about creating the Life article in the first place. Since then, this page has received far more traffic than the Life article has: the Life article has had only 1 (yes, 1) edit in 2009 and only 6 in total, ever, not counting its creation, whereas this one has had a couple of hundred in 2009 alone, and probably some thousands all up.

But how can this be? Surely, if the Life article is meant to be far more detailed than this one, then most new information would be going there and most of the editorial attention would be focussed there. Some information would go in both articles. But very little would be going in this article alone. Yet, the opposite is the case.

It seems to me that having these separate articles is not working, and has never really worked. The Life article was said to be a "work in progress", but even the creator seems to have given up on it.

I propose that they be merged into one article once more. No information would be lost; but it would all be in the one place, the place that most editors are expecting to find it. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The articles should be merged. The information in the Life article is mostly redundant. And a vote of two editors (one of whom has not been active for over a year and a half, is hardly a ringing endorsement.THD3 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge. Alton never should have created his fork of Rachmaninoff's life as it is the responsibility of the article Sergei Rachmaninoff to portray everything important about the man's life. To my way of thinking, Alton should have worked within this article, not created a parallel one. Merge them. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not how WP works. See WP:SUMMARY. If there's enough for a new article (and I'm not saying there is in this case), then it's fine to have both. Of course, given how it is NOW, it's bad -- the main article has too much to be also split off -- but it's not an inherently bad thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge it. Yes Binksternet, ideally it would've been worked on within this article, but the detail I was going for was that of the first three paragraphs in Life which are not "mostly redundant" (his siblings aren't mentioned at all in this main page, nothing about his grandmother, who both first exposed him to liturgical music and was one of the sources of his famous laziness, Zverev and his relationship with Sergei, which is so instrumental to his development, is also barely brushed over, and so on); further, no one decides what is more important, but I know that on the other side the level of detail in those first paragraphs would be certainly scrubbed out of this main page as fluff. But I guess that ambition goes beyond esoteric even for Wiki. ALTON .ıl 11:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Then move the relevant information to Sergei Rachmaninoff childhood and Sergei Rachmaninoff early career or similar. My biggest problem with the detail presented at the Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff page is that it announces itself as "Life of" rather than singling out a subdivision of his life, appropriate to a split from the main article. I think that any biography article implies "Life of" in front of the name of the person, and that no article should be entitled "Life of X" when X suffices. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
After no response here and considerable thought, I have moved the Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff page to Youth of Sergei Rachmaninoff. The youth section was the one most prominently augmented by Alton, and the word "life" misdirected the reader from this article here, entitled simply Sergei Rachmaninoff. As well, I trimmed off all the non-youth parts of the newly moved article, in keeping with its new name. Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that has had the effect of certain post-youth information just disappearing off into the bottomless pit of oblivion. Such as the fact of, and precise date of, his becoming a US citizen (1 Feb 1943), which was mentioned there and is not here. And various other things too, I'll bet. Someone needs to do a merge of the excised material with this article, and quickly. Those who did the fiddling with the original set up have responsibility for ensuring that information is not lost, and to fix such problems if and when they do occur. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you Jack, but I'll be surprised if those "various other things" that were added to the biographical article persist on this page. ALTON .ıl 04:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've now had a good close look at the movements of text, and have substantially restored most of what went missing. Some of it's now in the main article, some in the Youth article. Now we can move on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please reinstate the audio of Rachmaninoff playing List S.480

I would do it, but I don't know how.

It was labeled something like "the Liszt transcription of Chopin's "The Maiden's Wish" ". Since it didn't start like like the score, I thought it was mislabeled. I would label it as

An excerpt from last part (starting at Variant II) of Liszt S.480 - Chants polonais #1 based on Chopin's Op.74-1 - The Maiden's Wish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giles1939 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Unholy clutter at the top

Anyone who thinks that messy opening had impact and was a service to readers, I ask to consider the advantages of my edit. Instead of wading through the extraordinary level of detail, much of it inappropriate in a summary, to get to the second item in the grammatical sentence ("was"), I have removed both New and Old Style birth-dates down to where you'd expect them to be, at the start of "Life", the opening section. The date of death is still at the end of the bio section, where it's useful. I've relocated the cyrillic script into the footnotes (very very few English-speakers can read cyrillic script, and it's still there for the vanishingly small number of readers who might want to verify, in the footnote). Tony (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me except taking the exact dates out. I don't know how this comes across to others, but to me it's a jolt; all comprehensive reference works I know include them. Not putting them there implies we don't know them. All the OS stuff can go in a footnote. Antandrus (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Putting the OS stuff in a footnote would be an improvement, but the full complement of numerals makes it hard to pick up the year-range of his life, which is critical in historical and cultural terms. The fact that he was born on 1 April is not critical right at the top, and IMO belongs in the section that announces his birth, along with its location. Tony (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much opinion?

I am a huge fan of Rachmaninoff and eat up compliments directed at him. But to me this article has too many personal, diary-esque reflections that do not seem in place in an encyclopedia. If you want to wax lyrical about his life and work, write a book. But here is not the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.95.152 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples would be good, but positive opinions aren't a bad thing, so long as they contribute to the nuetral point of view policy. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Personal subjective opinions should at least always be attributed to the source, or removed. Offliner (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this article seems very Russian biased. Rachmaninoff left Russia never to return in response to the revolution's summoning of hatred. Till this day Russia asks of the Rachmaninoff family to return Sergei back to Russia for burial there, but, as directed by Sergei himself, the family declines. Shouldn't this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.48.0 (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I put a tag for this. While I would mostly agree to it myself, the style doesn't quite feel right for a Wikipedia article. For example "He was famed for possessing a flawless, clean and inhuman virtuoso piano technique" or "From those barely moving fingers came an unforced, bronzelike sonority and an accuracy bordering on infallibility". If we could quote someone as having said that, it would be ok I guess, but claiming someone had "inhuman" or "infallible" qualities is just a little bit over the top :) --Allefant (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I greatly admire the man but his reputation and technique should be pared down to a single paragraph - readers could then investigate the sources to get a deeper critical feeling that has been writter about him. The way that section reads it would appear Rachmaninoff never had an off-day in performance and could summon the Muses at his command. It's written far too much like a fan's eulogy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Name in Russian in lead

To TONY:

Your summary at last edit: "This is not the Russian WP, and our readers tend not to read Russian. Please explain why the clutter can't be in a ref."[5]

My answer: Because all other Russian writers, composers, cities, rivers etc. have their name in original Russian in lead. That's why. And I can't see how someone's original name in Russian could be considered "clutter". The rest, such as different ways to spell a Russian name in English, that is "clutter" and should remain in footnote.

even the name for "vodka" is given in Russian:

--Frania W. (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


The one part of of an intro that is NOT clutter, is the pronunciation of the name, which we don't have. As noted above, the end is properly devoiced and pronounced "-off" not "ov" which is doubtless why the composer chose to translitate it that way all his life, and why it's in English on his gravestone that way. The "off" pronunciation is closest, even if all the standard transliterations demand "ov". It's even true for composer Ри́мский-Ко́рсаков = Rimsky-Korsakov as well; it's transliterated "Korsakov" but pronounced "Korsakoff". Wiki articles quite commonly have pronounciations, especially for words often mispronounced. Here is one of them. The problem now is whether to do IPA or the much easier to read pronunciation respelling. I vote for the latter. Why don't we present the reader with something useful, like how to say the man's name in a way that won't get you branded as a Philistine? SBHarris 05:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Because all other Russian writers, composers, cities, rivers etc. have their name in original Russian in lead. That's why." That is a very bad reason to start insisting on this inappropriate, useless clutter that utterly ruins the opening of the article. Which bit of Сергей Васильевич Рахманинов do you understand? This is right at the opening of the article, a critical place where the readers' attention is greatest. Yet there seems to be some issue about avoiding stuff they have no hope of creating any meaning out of, unless, of course, they are Russian-speakers. And while the transliteration is provided, again at clutter-point, I have difficulty in determining exactly how it is different from the way the name would be pronounced by an English-speaker from the standard English orthography given at the start. How? Tell me; I'd love to know how "Sergey Vasil'evich Rakhmaninov" differs in pronunciation from "Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninoff". If I can't tell, why is it not in a footnote, where it is available to anyone who wants, but does not wreck the impact of the opening for everyone? Tony (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here. It's a matter of the large majority of articles across WP doing it, hardly just Russian people. Japanese, Chinese, etc etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You can't tell the difference between Rock-man-in-ov, and Rackh-man-in-off? Do you say Noodles Romanoff or Noodles Romanov? Which one was the royal family? (hint-- it's all the same name, so if you pronouce the dish differently from the Czar's family, you have a problem). Do you say Beef Stroganoff or Beef Stroganov? Same problem-- but there it's spelled with the same "ov" Russian ending, but pronounced with an "-off" in English and (this time) transliterated that way (just as the Czar's name is somehow not). I agree that the Cyrillic is off-putting in the lede. It should simply have the composer's name as he spelled it in English (Rachmaninoff), and then a pronunciation as close as possible to how he said it, which would have been the way Russians do: Rackh-MAN-in-off. The first thing you can do in the section after the lede, is put in the Cyrillic and the formal academic transliteration, which are in the lede now, and doing no good.

Having said all that, every ancient Greek has his name in Greek letters in the lede also. Look at Socrates and Plato: if you want to fight this battle on WP you have to start with them, not with Russian composers. There's plenty of precident for using alphabets that WP supports for non-Latin-lettered personal names. So if you are going to kick SOMETHING out of the lede, it would be the formal academic transliteration, which is the least useful of all the information there now, because it isn't used by ANYBODY. SBHarris 08:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. So that deals with the transliteration, which at least is in roman script that gives some idea (although nothing definitive, particularly in this case) of what it's trying to convey to the readers. Can we deal with the totally foreign Cyrillic script, now? Why should that not also go into a footnote? Tony (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Because we don't do it for the Greeks or anybody else that has a supported font on WP. Sorry, but here is not the place to change policy. If we have roman, it should be the way the man did it, and to assist in how we say it, neither of which the academic roman transliteration does. SBHarris 08:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! We have only the Russian pronunciation in the lede, which is the most important thing and reduces the clutter. But now the rest is gone completely. Could we now put the Cyrillic name someplace back in the article, perhaps at the beginning of the birth section? We can leave the academic transliteration out, since Rachmaninoff did that for himself (and differently) and in any case his own transliteration choice is now what fronts the article in the lede.SBHarris 22:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why give a different treatment to Rachmaninoff? Please look at the nearly 20 examples I gave above. The most important in the lede is his name in Russian, i.e. in Cyrillic. As for the pronunciation, English speakers who do not know Russian will pronounce the way Rachmaninoff is pronounced in English-speaking countries- to me it is the transliteration that is superfluous.
--Frania W. (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The transliteration would be superfluous except that it is Rachmaninoff's personal transliteration-- the one published on his Engish works, his English concert schedules, and his gravemarker. So we use that. The academic transliteration (as well as all others) is actually bad, as it contains at least one letter (the v at the end of the name, for в) that is never said as "f" in English, but is not voiced as v in Russian in these conditions. It's pronouced "f" or "ph", so why it's transliterated as v is a mystery to me, but one that we can leave out so it doesn't confuse the reader. See above. As to having the Cyrillic somewhere in in the lede, I'm agnostic. It's not so bad if we leave out the academic transliterations. It does tend to clutter up the first sentence, particularly as we have an old-style date to deal with also. But as a "next" thing to go in, that would be it. Yes, I see your examples, but we're not treating Rachmaninoff totally differently from everybody. There is no Cyrillic in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky nor Leo Tolstoy, both of which you give as having them. They've been removed since. This now varies from article to article. SBHarris 00:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The reason why there is no Cyrillic in
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky [6]
nor Leo Tolstoy[7]
is because someone removed them after the discussion had begun here. All articles on Russians have had Cyrillic up to now.
Here is how Russian wikipedia handles articles on foreigners whose names in the original are not in Cyrillic:
--Frania W. (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Per Frania, it's standard for Russian bios to have the Cyrillic name in the lede. I think this is a very dubious change which doesn't have wide consensus. Since this has the potential to affect many, many articles I will bring the issue up at WikiProject:Russia. --Folantin (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Opinions on whether Cyrillic Russian spelling, exact date and place of birth, pronunciation (in English and/or Russian), and so on are "clutter" differ from one editor to another, and every now and then threads just like this one pop up here or there. I would like to thank Folantin for bringing this to the attention of WP:RUSSIA, but as a matter of fact this should be brought up before an even wider audience. The long-standing consensus has been that all these pieces of information are fine in the lead as they are. My recommendation would be to stop arguing over this particular article, and submit an RfC regarding the matter. Also, it shouldn't be just about Cyrillic in the lead; it should be about all the data bits normally found there. Going through process will take time, but clarifying the issue once and for all is well worth the effort. Perhaps something better will come out of it even. Arguing over one article at a time, on the other hand, is just silly and a waste of everyone's time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 17, 2010; 14:48 (UTC)
And, in the meantime, name in Cyrillic should be kept in lead in all Russian-related articles (or ancient Greek for that matter); if not, we are going to have a mess on our hands, which has already begun by the removing of Cyrillic name at Tchaikovsky & Tolstoy. And keep transliteration out, that's the messy part.
--Frania W. (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Transliteration (when it differs from the article's title) is actually required to be in the lead by the WP:RUS guideline. On the rest, you are right. Due process needs to be followed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 17, 2010; 15:35 (UTC)
OK. FW

I missed this discussion, but regardless I oppose this change. KEEP THE RUSSIAN. Removal is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard on Wiki. Should we take 北京 out of Beijing? "our readers tend not to read Russian" is a completely baseless, flippant argument. ALTON .ıl 05:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if my featured picture of Rachmaninoff is used in the article somewhere? Perhaps someone could write a caption for it. Etincelles (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Great photo! It would work well in the article. Can you Photoshop a replacement button onto his vest? Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I could, but I think it would misrepresent the historical source. Etincelles (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As a sideline to this discussion, where do we cross the line between having an adequately illustrated article and a cluttered one? Subjectively, I would say that one photo per section is more than adequate. Wikipedia:MOS#Images does not have rigid rules for the number of images in an article, but does have guidelines. I am of the opinion that this article has crossed the line with too many photos. There is a category for Rachmaninoff in commons, after all.[12]THD3 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Friendship with Vladimir Horowitz

Is somebody trying to promote a movie or book? This article is on Rachmaninoff and not V. Horowitz isn't it? I've never seen a Wiki page on an artist feature so much content on another artist (unless they were married). Even though below it states it was trimmed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StyleIcons (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am substantially trimming this section. Much of it is out of scope for the article, which is a biographical article on Rachmaninoff. Second, much of the information in the source (a Milwaukee Journal article from 1943) is just plain wrong. Horowitz never played the Rachmaninoff Second Concerto after he left Russia, and he never performed under Rachmaninoff's baton. And the bit about their 1928 meeting being "recreated" defines irrelevance.THD3 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the trimming. It never occurred to me until I read the reference, but on reflection I couldn't remember ever hearing Horowitz play the Rach 2, only the Rach 3. And now I know why. But such a recording would go on my "List of Recordings that Should Have Been Made but Weren't", along with Horowitz's version of the Wanderer Fantasy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have once again removed inaccurate information from this section. Horowitz never played the Rachmaninoff Second Concerto after he left Russia, and he never performed under Rachmaninoff's baton. No right thinking person would describe Horowitz as a "champion" of the Second Concerto based on the few times he played it in Russia, by which time the work was already well known.THD3 (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This section is still much too long. Can you pare it down to just a paragraph? HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I did a little trimming, removing some purple prose, adding a few details. You can also be bold and do the trimming yourself.THD3 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This section still needs a thorough for accuracy. It's been a while since I read Plaskin's bio of Horowitz but, if memory serves correctly, it was Horowitz who sought Rachmaninoff's friendship, not the other way around, and Rachmaninoff kept his distance till after Horowitz married Wanda due to rumors of Horowitz's homosexuality. Jonyungk (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statement about American concerts after 1909

This statement:

Rachmaninoff made his first tour of the United States as a pianist in 1909, an event for which he composed the Piano Concerto No. 3 (Op. 30, 1909) as a calling card. This successful tour made him a popular figure in America. Nevertheless, he loathed the tour and declined offers of future American concerts.[21]

is misleading, given the following sections about R. living in the U.S. and concertizing extensively. Citation is to Grove -- is that what they really say? Should be some qualification given about when he changed his mind.

(Is this something I should check out and edit, or leave to original author? Not sure of protocol here.) Dwythe (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I amended the passage to clear up this point. Jonyungk (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like a link to the Rachmaninoff Performance Diary, hosted by the Rachmaninoff Society, to be included on the Rachmaninoff page. The URL is: http://www.rachmaninoff.org/rachdiary/index_embed.php Bulfinchmyth (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Would be redundant, as the main site is already linked. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Society's main page is linked, however it is not clear that a reader can through it access a complete listing of every concert given by Rachmaninoff as pianist, conductor, chamber musician, and recording sessions, etc. I note there is a listing for Rachmaninoff's performances as a conductor on a separate line, but the Performance Diary site clearly exceeds that by a great dimension. If it's not possible to create a separate link, could information on the same line indicate that through the Society's site one can navigate to a complete list of all of Rachmaninoff's performances and recording sessions? Bulfinchmyth (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sergei_Rachmaninoff/Archive_1&oldid=1190113634"