Rachmaninov Piano Concertos, overrated?

[allegroamabile]

I know a lot of people are going to disagree and get angry at me for posting this but I just wanted to see if there are any musicians who aren't as thrilled by these pieces as most people are.

[Niels]

That does not mean those pieces are overrated, if most people aren't as thrilled by it as some people. It just means those people like it differently.

By the way, when do you call something overrated?

[Lyle Neff]

I'm beginning to think that the word "overrated" is overrated.

[allegroamabile]

True. Let me rephrase my question then; is there anyone who does not like these pieces?

[Lyle Neff]

Yes; such people do exist.

[KGill]

Well, IMO they're kind of cheesy, but they're all right. The Third is pretty good. The only bad one is the Fourth- not distinct enough.

[allegroamabile]

Then why are they so famous!?

[vinteuil]

The themes.
I think the Rhapsody (even -Var.18) is the best of the "5"

[allegroamabile]

I will tell you one piece that isn't cheesey, and that is Rachmaninov's Symphony No.2. You just got to love that final coda.....

[Niels]

Why do you think they are cheesy?

[allegroamabile]

I didn't say that.

[KGill]

I think they're kind of cheesy because they're very, very, very, VERY romantic, which includes lush orchestration- lush in the sense that it's extremely thick and un-idiomatic. The string parts, for instance, are incredibly uninteresting. And after all, a concerto isn't just the solo with occasional filling in, just as a violin sonata isn't a piece for violin with piano vamp. Of course, these concerti do not go that far, but...actually, they sort of do. They're like the Chaikovsky concerti in that the solo gets close to all the thematic material or other interesting stuff except for a few tutti sections. And I believe that makes them cheesy because there's the piano showing off a bunch (well, that's kind of a facetious way of putting it, but...it's not easy ), and the orchestra has harmonic backup and sometimes a few token lines. And I know that the first three are quite good in places, but that's in spite of being very ponderous, with little emotional variation (either epic or voluptuously beautiful). And (more minor criticism), in the Second, there are a few spots which could have used a lot more transition (like from the exposition of the first theme to the second in the first movement)- at least IMO.
However, I do not hate them (or think they're overrated, Yagan ). The Second Symphony in my mind is a good example of that category of piece which could lose 65% in length and suddenly become much better (this also includes the finales of Schubert's piano trios).
So basically, my final opinion is that they're great to listen to, could be really good with a good conductor/soloist (see Rakhmaninov's own recordings), but as objects of further study, they fall flat on their faces before Beethoven (at least the last two) and others such as...maybe Mozart, Brahms, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, even Khachaturyan. (Sorry, I tend to cite 20th century Russian composers a lot.)

[vinteuil]

I think they're kind of cheesy because they're very, very, very, VERY romantic, which includes lush orchestration- lush in the sense that it's extremely thick and un-idiomatic. The string parts, for instance, are incredibly uninteresting. And after all, a concerto isn't just the solo with occasional filling in, just as a violin sonata isn't a piece for violin with piano vamp.

That's why I love the Rhapsody! It's extremely idiomatic for all.

[KGill]

You do have a point, the Rhapsody is considerably more involved with the orchestra.

[allegroamabile]

Nice come back, kgill.

I stand by my word of them being overrated. If you think the Rachmoninov concerti are so unintresting kgill, then you probably will think that they are overrated since they are so popular.