Search - Sergey Rachmaninov, Martin Roscoe, Peter Donohoe :: Rachmaninov: Music for Two Pianos

All of Rachmaninov's Two-Piano Music, in Performances to Tre

J Scott Morrison | Middlebury VT, USA | 12/23/2006

(5 out of 5 stars)

"There have been many recordings of each of these three pieces, and a number of times they have all been contained on one CD, although more often one or the other of them is presented with some other non-Rachmaninov works. However, there have been CDs of the three by such teams as Ax/Bronfman, Argerich/Rabinovitch, Howard Shelley and Hilary Macnamara, and best of all, by André Previn and Vladimir Ashkenazy. The latter version has been my favorite over the past thirty years. I rather liked another relatively new version by the team of Begoña Uriarte and Karl-Hermann Mrongovius and particularly its very fine recorded sound. There was also a treasurable version by the fabled team of Vronsky and Babin although I don't know it if has made it to CD, and it is, of course, in ancient sound.



Enter Peter Donohoe and Martin Roscoe, two English pianists; they are both natives of Manchester and longtime friends who are not generally a two-piano team -- each has a lively solo career -- who have previously recorded a disc featuring music of, of all people, George Gershwin, a real winner. (I particularly liked the Percy Grainger Fantasy on 'Porgy and Bess'!)



The centerpiece, and appearing first on the CD, are the magnificent 'Symphonic Dances', Rachmaninov's last composition which is probably better known in his orchestral version. It is certainly one of the great two-piano works in the literature and surely one of the best of the twentieth century. It is technically very difficult -- no surprise with Rachmaninov -- but much more important are the lush harmonies and arching melodies, as well as the etched filigree of the piano writing. It is next to impossible to get the right balance between lyricism and virtuosity in the work; in their performance Argerich and Rabinovitch overdid the impetuous virtuosity, for instance. Donohoe and Roscoe get it just right. The same is true for the much earlier Suite No. 2 and the Fantaisie-Tableaux (often called Suite No. 1) both influenced by Tchaikovsky. (Indeed, the First Suite was dedicated to Tchaikovsky.)



I believe this recording stands with the Previn/Ashkenazy at the top of the list of recordings of the Rachmaninov's two-piano works, and it has the advantage of modern sound. (Although it must be said that the Uriarte/Mrongovius still has an edge sonically.)



Scott Morrison"

DULL

Unreal Name | USA | 03/30/2007

(1 out of 5 stars)

"Yes, they play together with taste and the recording is exceptionally good.



But they're dull.



Sunday-afternoon music making. About as thrilling as Mendelssohn's "Songs without Words" played by an inferior music teacher.



They manage to make the music sound more insignificant than it is.



They are marginally more forceful in the Symphonic Dances as compared to the Suites, but it was the Suites for which I particularly bought this. What a disappointment.



My comparisons are to Ashkenazy/Previn (great), Argerich/Friere (too fast), Argerich/Rabinovich (bizarre), Ax/Berezovsky (awful) and all the others, including my favorite: the OOP Pekinel sisters."

EN SUITE

DAVID BRYSON | Glossop Derbyshire England | 01/20/2007

(5 out of 5 stars)

"The liner note accompanying this disc offers the interesting thought that Rachmaninov's Symphonic Dances (which exist also in orchestral form) amount to `a virtual symphony'. The composer himself stopped short of such a title, and the other two sets of pieces were designated by him `suites'. To call something a symphony is to make a larger claim than to call it a suite, implying greater intellectual and formal concentration. The Symphonic Dances are powerful, original and impressive certainly, but dances they remain, intended originally for a ballet, and I should say that they are best heard as just another suite. Listened to in this way they follow in the tradition of the earlier suites, and the fascination that comes with that is in tracing the development of Rachmaninov's idiom and style in a single genre of composition.



The production has shown a welcome touch of originality and imagination in presenting the three compositions in the reverse order of their creation, and I enjoyed playing them first in that order and next in the sequence in which they were given to the world. The Dances are the composer's last major composition, and the difference in tone from the earlier suites is marked. The first of the suites is a very early work, the second is contemporary with the second piano concerto, and both show us the familiar Rachmaninov of that period, rich in sound and full-blooded in manner. The suites are tone-painting, less lyrical than the concertos are because they are concerned with musical depiction and not just purely musical expression, but the composer is the same man at the same stage of his development and experience. The Dances are something else. There is a slightly macabre aura about them, the harmony has at times an effect that is almost gaunt, and I think I hear quite clear influence in them from Prokofiev.



The recorded sound, from 2002 and 2004, is quite exceptionally successful in capturing the players' complete range of effects from musical-box delicacy to a thunderous fortissimo in a way that sounds completely effortless and natural. Nothing less would have done justice to the playing here, which is Rachmaninov-playing of the very highest order. This may not be the most overtly emotional Rachmaninov you ever heard, but I don't believe any of these pieces are that in any case. To my ears, what these accounts capture to an exceptional degree is the poise that should go with the power in this composer, and the aristocracy that accompanies the ardour. The players exhibit professionalism in the best and most appropriate senses. The ensemble and `togetherness' are absolute, when a big tone is required it is very big (and I recommend a high volume-setting to get the best effect) but always majestic and never forced, and the fast sequences convey excitement without losing the haughtiness that was such a marked feature of Rachmaninov's own playing.



There is even quite a good liner-note from Keith Anderson, and there are short profiles of the two players, who are probably still not as celebrated as they deserve to be. Take good note, if you will, of the guidance supplied by Dr Morrison in the adjoining review regarding alternative performances, but this is as fine an account of Rachmaninov's music for two pianos as I for one have ever heard in my life. Moreover this is a Naxos production, and as I continually find myself saying the value provided is quite exceptional - apart from anything else there is nearly 80 minutes' worth of music here. From me, top marks in every department."