Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Potential quality article?

I don't see how this article can't become a possible GAN within a month or two. The spanish version of the article is featured and is mostly a translation of the enwiki version. However, it is properly sourced, while this one is somewhat lacking in the Works and Recordings sections respectively. Most browsers allow users to translate pages to English, so perhaps that can facilitate adding references to the appropriate locations in this article, as the Spanish version uses English refs. Another thing to note is their "In popular culture section", which hitherto doesn't exist here. I could perhaps expand it here, add info from recently published refs and make sure the lede summarizes the last two sections. @Dave12121212: You are presently the most active user, so perhaps I should ping you. Wretchskull (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with adding an in pop culture section, unless strong secondary sourcing can be found for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Fair enough. Apart from sourcing, I see that the article often neglects some necessary details here and there. Referencewise, some citations are inconsistent, having linked book pages while others don't. Any thoughts? Wretchskull (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Convenience links like that can be added when available, but are not always available - for that reason I don't see that as a consistency problem. However, more broadly I do see consistency issues - eg some citations use templates while others don't, 205 is missing page, some books have locations while others don't (optional but should pick one approach), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It still seems like this article has quite a bit to go. It contains a lot of remnants of past WP composer articles, where as now the organizational and content standard has vastly increased. The "Fluctuating reputation" for example, is no where near comprehensive and everything before the "Compositional style" in the works section is merely an uncited textual-list of his works—the latter should probably all be removed and somewhat rewritten. The Media should be integrated into the article and the "Works about Rachmaninoff" should be cut completely, except the musical which seems notable (I assume it can be included in a revised reputation/legacy section). I question much of the pianism section; "Memory" for example, is only cited to Schonberg and reads like hagiography. Frankly, though, the standard expressed in it seems typical of most world-class concert pianists. Lines like "Rachmaninoff's repertoire, excepting his own works, consisted mainly of standard 19th century virtuoso works plus music..." is sourced to Grove; the point of that information in Grove, however, is to explain that his repertoire is relatively small, but here it is presented in a different fashion. Rather confusingly, nothing in the Technique section has to do with piano technique. The life section seems in good shape, but likely goes too in-depth in some parts.Aza24 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the article a little closer and fixed some of the issues I had mentioned earlier. I don't think aiming for GA would be a huge stretch; the main need would be some substantial revising and expansion of pianism and reputation sections. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I basically agree with everything that's been said here, and thankyou for your edits Aza24, I agree that the pianism and reputation sections are the ones most in need of work. As to the inconsistency with links to pages, I'm fixing that now. — Dave12121212 [talk] 00:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, every citation on the page where the book is available should now have a link going to the page cited.— Dave12121212 [talk] 09:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The lead feels a little short to me. I was going to take a crack at adding some myself, but remembered a sandbox I found a while back from the person who brought Tchaikovsky to FA. I adapted some of it into this:

"[Name and such] was a Russian composer, virtuoso pianist, and conductor. Rachmaninoff is widely considered one of the finest pianists of his day and, as a composer, one of the last great representatives of Romanticism in Russian classical music. Early influences of Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and other Russian composers gave way to a thoroughly personal idiom that notable for song-like melodicism, expressiveness and rich orchestral colours. The piano is featured prominently in Rachmaninoff's compositional output and he made a point of using his own skills as a performer to explore fully the expressive possibilities of the instrument."

Thoughts? I toned down some of the language in the sandbox. I also wonder if "last great representatives of Romanticism into the 20th-century" would be better. Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

To me this seems like quite an improvement. It fixes some of the problems of the current lead, (e.g. why are Balakirev and Mussorgsky included in the second sentence, but then not mentioned once in the rest of the article?) whilst also adding things which deserve to be mentioned (e.g. R as a pianist, the place of the piano in his works). Also, I think the removal of words such as "structural ingenuity" and "pronounced lyricism" from the version in the sandbox makes it a fair bit easier to read. In the third sentence, "a thoroughly personal idiom that notable for song-like melodicism..." should be changed to "a thoroughly personal idiom notable for song-like melodicism..." or "a thoroughly personal idiom notable for its song-like melodicism...", or something similar. Other than that, this lead, in my opinion, looks a fair bit better than the current one. — Dave12121212 [talk] 07:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your tireless edits guys! I agree the lede needs improvement. For instance, it does not summarize the last two sections. Before I add the fourth paragraph in the lede, I will work on the last to sections on a sandbox. Also, the life section is a little too detailed, yet somehow also missing vital details, such as the fact that Vasily wanted Rachmaninoff to join the military (Page Corps). I'll see what I can do, hopefully with serious output beginning at the latter half of December. Wretchskull (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the new first paragraph and included Dave's suggestions. Keep us updated on your lead work Wretch. I will attempt to write a more comprehensive "Reputation and Legacy" in the coming days. – Aza24 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy and music

I've begun to work on a new legacy section, see User:Aza24/Sandbox4, and I plan to finish it soon (I have read through all of the sources I need, just putting pieces together now). For the music section, which is still very rough, I'm seeing two options

1. We cut the Works section entirely, all of which is uncited and already discussed in the biography. We then beef up the compositional style section to make it super solid and well sourced
2. We cut the works section, minimize the style section and start a new approach. This would be akin to many FA composers; a break down of Rachmaninoff's compositions by genres, presumably opera, concerti, orchestral, songs, choral music, chamber and piano music. This might seem like a big endevour, but if we split up the work between myself, Michael Aurel and Wretchskull (I know some other CM people that might be interested) it would be more manageable. Plus the sections on songs, choral music and chamber music would likely be somewhat short.

Any thoughts are appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your legacy section looks good; mostly referencing is left. Now that I've finished my projects, I've started a subpage where I will brush up a few parts of the life section and work on songs, choral and chamber music. I'll keep you updated. Wretchskull (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Something I realized about the lede is that it states "In 1897, following the negative critical reaction to his Symphony No. 1, Rachmaninoff entered a four-year depression ..." which, even though one were to assume that these are just two consecutive events, implies that the negative reception caused his depression, when in reality he was undisturbed by it. He was depressed due to the poor rehearsal and premiere. Perhaps better would be "In 1897, following the disastrous premiere of his Symphony No. 1, Rachmaninoff entered a four-year depression ...". Aza24, Michael Aurel, thoughts? Wretchskull (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clear up any confusion, Dave12121212 was my old account, which I managed to lock myself out of. - Michael Aurel (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, well that article you linked to suggests that maybe the lead should be like In 1897, following the disastrous premiere of his Symphony No. 1, Rachmaninoff entered a four-year depression for reason that are still unclear. He composed little until..."? Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Both of those are improvements over the existing. Since I think we should be cautious about assigning the cause of a four-year depression to a single event, Aza's "...reasons that are still unclear" is attractive. (Personally I am glad they didn't have antidepressants then. Imagine a Piano Concerto No. 2 in C major, and a later Isle of the Happy, or a Rachmaninoff who gave up composing for a career in sales). Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to go into detail about the exact cause of his depression in the lede. What is certain is that he got depressed after the premiere, and his depression in the lede is naturally interpreted as a successive event in his life. More details about his depression can go to the life section. Also, considering the horribly bloated life section, even these intricate details may need to stay at the Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff)-article, although this may be an exception as the work is very interweaved with his depression. Wretchskull (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally think Wretchskull's version is a little better, just for the sake of conciseness in the lead. A phrase like "for reasons that are still unclear" would probably be better in the body, if we're going to discuss the reason/reasons there more. I agree that the current wording should go, since most sources (at least the ones I've looked at while writing this) seem to emphasize that Rachmaninoff was particularly upset with the poor performance, while not mentioning what he thought of Cui's criticisms and the poor reception. However, I can't find a source that outright attributes his depression to the premiere as opposed to the reception, so I don't know if we can justify writing it that way? – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the lede for now. Almost every biography states that he was horrified during the rehearsal, and hid on the stairs of the corridor during the premiere, occasionally putting his fists against his ears to stop the sounds which were torturing him until he ran away. I'll see how I can incorporate all of the discussed matters onto the lede without bloating it considerably. Wretchskull (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sergei Rachmaninoff house at 610 Elm Drive in Beverly Hills, California

Sergei Rachmaninoff house at 610 Elm Drive in Beverly Hills, California.

This is the last house owned by Sergei Rachmaninoff in the USA. The house address is 610 Elm Drive Beverly Hills, California. Sergei Rachmaninoff bought this house in 1942, after playing successful concerts at Hollywood Bowl.

The Rachmaninoffs moved in this property with his family. Before he bought this house, Sergei Rachmaninoff lived nearby in a rented home at Tower Lane just north of Sunset Blvd, also in Beverly Hills. There he had two Steinway pianos and often played duo with his friends, most notably with Vladimir Horowitz whom Sergei Rachmaninoff considered the best performer of his piano concertos.Steveshelokhonov 18:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Obituary from New York Times stated that Rachmaninoff died of complications from pneumonia and pleurisy

LOS ANGELES, March 28 -- Sergei V. Rachmaninoff, pianist, composer and conductor, who for fifty years had been a leader in the music world on two continents, died today at his Beverly Hills home of complications resulting from pneumonia and pleurisy, which twice had caused him to cancel recitals here this month..

This obituary was published in NYT on March 29, 1943.Steveshelokhonov 19:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death: complications resulting from pneumonia and pleurisy

Sergei V. Rachmaninoff, pianist, composer and conductor, who for fifty years had been a leader in the music world on two continents, died today at his Beverly Hills home of complications resulting from pneumonia and pleurisy, which twice had caused him to cancel recitals here this month..Steveshelokhonov 19:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A citizen of the United States of America who was born abroad, in Russia, Sergei Rachmaninoff was legally a Russian American

Indeed, he was a naturalized US citizen, so as a citizen of the United States of America who was born abroad, in Russia, Sergei Rachmaninoff was legally a Russian American. His US citizenship certificate is in public domain, like other government records. Sergei Rachmaninoff certificate of citizen of the United States is signed by president Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

With respect to all users of wikipedia, Steveshelokhonov 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. : Sergei Rachmaninoff became a US citizen on the 1st of February, 1943, just eight weeks before he died at his Beverly Hills home.Steveshelokhonov 22:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Intra-tonal, inter-tonal, extra-tonal.

The article contrasts the "intra-tonal chromaticism" of Rachmaninov's music with the "inter-tonal chromaticism" of Wagner's music, and the "extra-tonal chromaticism" of Schoenberg's music - yet it does not tell us what these terms mean. I think I know a reasonable amount about music, but I do not know what these terms mean; they do not appear to be standard terms in music theory.

I think it would improve the article if someone who does know what these terms mean could please write a description of them and put it into the article. (I would do it myself if I knew what the terms mean.)

Thank you. M.J.E. (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. These phrases are understandably confusing but I think I understand the gist of it; I'll get to them when I have time. Wretchskull (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@M.J.E. I agree that it is somewhat confusing. I too had to think through what was meant, and have studied music theory in grad school. My guess is that the author is implying differences of the use of chromaticism in terms of harmonic function. Inter means within and intra means between. I would assume that inter-tonal chromaticism refers to the use of chromaticism within a singular tonality whereas intra-tonal chromaticism could refer to the use of chromaticism to move between tonalities (as in chromaticism within a Modulation) or perhaps even bitonality or polytonality (i.e. more than one tonality happening simultaneously). Wagner did experiment with polytonality; a practice which eventually led others like Schoenberg later to atonality. Extra-tonal chromaticism would likely refer to Schoenberg's concept of "chromatic saturation" which formed the basis of his twelve-tone technique, which being atonal, would not be within a tonality or moving between tonalities. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I actually arrived at similar conclusions myself, but was far from sure if that was what the person who used these terms meant to convey.

It does make sense: in Rachmaninov, for example, he can feature passages which are extremely chromatic but which never leave the key the passage starts in; and I can see how certain passages in Wagner use extreme chromaticism to constantly modulate from one key to another - but he never quite left tonality altogether as late Schoenberg did.

So I can see how the terms fit. But are they standard musical terms? if so, perhaps they can get their own article(s), and this page can link to the terms. But if they are not standard, maybe they can still stay in the page as a description of different uses of chromaticism; but in that case, I think they should be accompanied by an explanation of their meaning.M.J.E. (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t consider them “standard” terms but obscure terms. I’d have to do some digging in my university library, but I would imagine that only small amount of theory literature would have used these terms. There’s probably a paper somewhere which created these terms and defined them for some sort of critical analysis, and then a few publications which may have adopted the terms after. But would they be terms in wide use? No, or we would see them frequently in writings on chromaticism, which just isn’t the case.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff was born in the family estate in the village of Semyonovo

Sergei Rachmaninoff was born in the family estate in the village of Semyonovo, near Staraya Russa, Novgorod Governorate. His birth was registered in Semyonovo church book and signed by Priest Platon Savitsky and acolyte Peter Lubochsky. The family moved to another house in Oneg estate after Sergei Rachmaninoff turned four, and several houses in and around the Semyonovo and estate were sold in 1878 and 1879 by Rachmaninoff's father. In Oneg, he was raised from age four until aged nine, and he mistakenly cited it as his birthplace in his adult life.

Semyonovo estate is 178 km (110 miles) south of Oneg estate, where the family moved after Sergei Rachmaninoff turned four. Semyonovo estate was adjacent to another two houses which Rachmaninoff's father lost to debt lien and sold during the years 1877 - 1879. The above mentioned facts regarding Semyonovo estate as the true and only birthplace of Sergei Rachmaninoff are well established and supported by documents at local archives and museums at Straya Russa and Novgorod. International Institute for Genealogical Research and Russian Dynasties program published the birth record.Steveshelokhonov 21:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Photo of Rachmaninoff at age 10

The photo was taken in Saint Petersburg. The Rachmaninoff family lived at 133, Fontanka River Embankment, Saint Petersburg, Russia. Steveshelokhonov 19:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Social activities for public benefit

Rachmaninoff's activities for public benefit must be mentioned. His personality and many social activities outside of music must be mentioned and deserve to be a dedicated section in the article.

A warm and generous person, Sergei Rachmaninoff gave many charitable contributions to a wide variety of causes. Rachmaninoff's generosity was legendary. In 1923, he gave away 5000 dollars to Igor Sikorsky to start an American helicopter industry. In 1926, he was among the founders of the Conservatoire Rachmaninoff, located at 26, Avenue de New York in Paris and recognized as a public benefit organization . He sponsored Michael Chekhov and introduced him to Hollywood.

At his Swiss villa 'Senar' Rachmaninoff hosted many notable people: musicians, such as Vladimir Horowitz, writers, such as Ivan Bunin, and even Maharaja with family from India. Sergei Rachmaninoff often played piano for his guests, as a gesture of respect and hospitality.

In 1940, he paid for Vladimir Nabokov and his family relocation from Paris to New York, from buying first class tickets for Nabokov's family transatlantic trip to helping their adaptation upon arrival America. In the early 1940s, Sergei Rachmaninoff gave numerous charitable performances, and donated large sums of money to fighting against the Nazis during WWII. Steveshelokhonov 20:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Sergei Rachmaninoff Obituary in NYT is the document of historic fact and reliable source

LOS ANGELES, March 28 -- Sergei V. Rachmaninoff, pianist, composer and conductor, who for fifty years had been a leader in the music world on two continents, died today at his Beverly Hills home of complications resulting from pneumonia and pleurisy, which twice had caused him to cancel recitals here this month.

Rachmaninoff Obituary by New York Times. 1943

Indeed, Sergei Rachmaninoff Obituary in NYT is the document of historic fact and reliable source. We are not willing to dispute, or argue with the obituary published in the reputable New York Times. The 1943 NYT publication of Sergei Rachmaninoff obituary is a reliable source and can hardly be argued with today.

His death certificate stating the cause of death as complications resulting from pneumonia and pleurisy. That's exactly the fact the New York Times obituary is based on.

With respect to all users of wikipedia, we, hereby are kindly providing the source of Sergei Rachmaninoff obituary - the New York Times publication of March 29, 1943 .Steveshelokhonov 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We can absolutely dispute it. Obituaries are not always accurate, as with this case. No matter how significant of an authority a source is, if the vast majority of reliable biograhies state otherwise, then the answer is obvious. The obituary is simply wrong. Wretchskull (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Informed and correct discussion is always good for talk page. The truth is in facts from his medical records signed by his doctors and published by New York Times.Steveshelokhonov 21:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Steveshelokhonov: Again, the obituary is wrong. It is contested by reliable book biographies that have repeatedly scrutinized vast amounts of information published during and after his life. They all contest most of what you have added so far; please use these to fact-check rather than outdated, unreliable obituaries. Also, please do not edit war and abide by WP:BRD. Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no edit war, just a talk page discussion in a well mannered polite way. Thank you. Steveshelokhonov 21:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Steveshelokhonov: I hope you understand what I wrote above. Also, regarding the edit war, it is one. You shouldn't make a point here and then go back to the article and revert back to your edit. You should only do so if there is consensus, i.e. we come to an agreement on what to change through discussion on the talk page. I've made it clear that the obituary is wrong and that you should use reliable book biographies as facts; you can find them at the bottom of the article. Wretchskull (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

References

American Citizenship

Why is Erich Wolfgang Korngold described as "an Austrian-born American composer and conductor" and Sergei Rachmaninoff not described similarly (he is described as "a Russian composer, virtuoso pianist, and conductor"? Rachmaninoff emigrated to the United States in 1918 (20 years before Korngold) and he and his wife became citizens in 1943 some months before Korngold did the same. As changing ones citizenship is a major step, involving years of planning, it seems to me that it is an insult to Rachmaninoff, and his descendants who are American, not to recognize the fact, at the outset of the article, that he was American, at least at the time of his death. Other famous Americans of foreign birth are not treated this way. For instance, Albert Einstein is described as "German born" and later in the article his Swiss and American citizenship is discussed. Igor Stravinsky is described as a "Russian composer and conductor with citizenship in France (from 1934) and the United States (from 1945)." I would suggest that Wikipedia develop a policy in these cases describing the persons at the outset as Russian born, or German born, or whatever, with the addendum that they became citizens of whatever country they relocated to (or fled to, as in the case of Rachmaninoff). Jay Gregg (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It may have something to do with the fact that he acquired US citizenship only in his dying months, but that doesn't negate the fact that he lived in the US for 25 years before that. He was certainly American by residence all that time.

I guess the difference between him and Korngold is that Korngold contributed massively to the American film industry, which in many ways is the face America shows to the world. There was never anything particularly German/Austrian about his music to begin with, so he slotted in perfectly. But Rachmaninoff never did that. He continued to write his Russian-influenced music all his life, and his last major works were his Three Russian Songs and Symphonic Dances; the latter quotes his 1st Symphony and Russian liturgical chants he had also used in his All Night Vigil. So, he remained strongly embedded in - indeed, he could never escape from, even if he had wanted to, which he probably didn't - Russian musical idiom. Korngold, on the other hand, became an internationalist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe most sources refer to him as just "Russian", so I think that is probably the most appropriate way to present him here. Several authors also discuss the "Russian character" of his works, and his music continued to be pretty firmly "Russian" in nature following 1917. He was, however, an American citizen by the time of his death, and he spent much of his life there, and the former seems at least deserving of mention in the lead. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Personal opinions

On reading this article I am surprised to find several opinions concerning Rachmaninoff's music, all of which reference a single book by someone named Max Harrison: [Rachmaninoff: Life, Works, Recordings (2006)]. According to Amazon, Harrison has written one other book on a classical composer [The Lieder of Brahms (1972)], and a large number of books on jazz. Looking at Amazon reader reviews of his Rachmaninoff book, my impression of the most useful of these, both extensive and thorough, are the two 2-star reviews. I'm not at all sure that Mr Harrison's personal opinions, alone, are appropriate for this WP article, certainly without a wider consensus. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why should anybody care about what some random people on Amazon say about this book? This is the type of review that we should be using to evaluate this book. It tells us that it took Harrison at least nine years to craft this updated biography and we learn that The main focus of this book is Rachmaninoff's compositions and Harrison approaches them in an encyclopedic manner. Are you aware of any reviews in actual reliable sources that raise substantive criticisms of the reliability of this book? Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not, which is why I asked. Thank you for the reference. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"Range or length" of melodies

The article claims that "his melodies did not have the range or length of Tchaikovsky's", this seems to be objectively false. The main theme of the first movement of the 2nd concerto is very long, and the 3rd concerto counterpart takes 17 bars to reach the highest note of the melody line. This is not a fanboy comment, I don't like either of the composers very much, but this is just plainly wrong. Not to mention that Tchaikovsky wrote plenty of short melodies, the Romeo and Juliet theme is like five notes long. 86.63.168.150 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

See the cited source (Walsh 1973, p. 15), which states: As a melodist, Rachmaninoff was much influenced by Tchaikovsky. But he was greatly Tchaikovsky's inferior in the range and variety of his tunes; and in learning from the older composer he seems to have been over-impressed by the cantabile mechanism which underlies Tchaikovsky's best lyrical inspiration -the step-wise motion and sensuous orchestration-while being unable to follow its immense intervallic span and extensive growth in time. Typically, Rachmaninoff's melodic periods are short, and there is a tendency to revolve round pivotal notes in descending sequence, whereas the typical Tchaikovsky progression is an ascending one. The long aspiring tunes of the Fifth Symphony, Francesca da Rimini, Hamlet and the Pathitique have few if any parallels in Rachmaninoff. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a pretty old source and a pretty bold bit of analysis. Can we attribute?

"Tchaikovsky was also particularly influential on Rachmaninoff's melodic writing, though musicologist Stephen Walsh describes Rachmaninoff's melodies as lacking the range or length of Tchaikovsky's.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal life, character and wealth

I think a little elaboration on his personal life (siblings, marriage, offspring) would be appropriate. I don't have the necessary information, however. Maybe someone else? As far as I know, he had two daughters. See for instance the tv-documentary in the external links on the Villa Senar page. I would also like a description of his personal appearance, his personality. In the introduction to the documentary on Swiss television (SRF), the presenter said that he was over 200 cm (6ft6) tall. Is that true? In the film, one of the interviewees says that you only need to look at his pictures to understand that there was nothing artificial or mundane about him, that he was an aristocrat at heart and that he was refinement all over. And that he was a family man. I would like to know more, with sources. (I don't have them.) And would it be appropriate to mention something about his wealth? When he moved to the US, he bought an apartment on the WestSide of Manhattan with a view on the Hudson River. Must have cost something. And in the film it is mentioned that he bought a couple of acres in Switzerland near Lucerne in 1930 to have his private villa build there, with a park around it. That must also have cost quite a few $. When he moved to California in 1942, he bought a house in Beverly Hills. Same story. I read somewhere that his grandson Alexandre Rachmaninoff, who was the last owner of the Villa Senar, was exceptionally rich. Wasn't he featured in Variety or Vanity Fair or Harper's Bazaar during his lifetime? Hansung02 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I checked out where he lived in Moscow, from his statue there. Just around the corner from the Bolshoi theatre, and, in the present day, a lot of embassies and four-star hotels.(GoogleMaps) That looks like the expensive part of town.Hansung02 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We discuss his marriage in the second paragraph of the "Recovery, emergence, and conducting" section, and the article does touch on his daughters (although it currently doesn't mention the birth of his second daughter, which could potentially be added). I'm not sure how much there would be to say about his family life, or his personality, and a discussion of his wealth is unlikely to be appropriate. With regards to his height, Young 1986, p. 1625 states that he was 193 cm, which is indeed tall, but probably isn't noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Rachmaninoff is notable primarily as a composer (and secondarily as a pianist), and this is what most sources focus on; our article should be a reflection of that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In most articles on famous artists (musicians, painters, architects etc.) there is a section "Personal life" with details on bachelor or married status (for instance it appears to be noteworthy that Moussorgsky never married), details on the spouse and possible children (for instance Picasso), whereabouts (some fans like to visit the places where their idol once lived), burial place (that is mentioned here), and someone's character or personality: I myself am interested in not only what a great professional somebody was, if that is what they are remembered for, but also who the person was as a human being. For instance in the Ken Russell film on Delius, it appears that Delius in his old age was a terrible man, a despot, a tyrant, and that is an image quite different from what you get when you listen to his music. That's why it is interesting to know who someone really was as a person, not as a celebrity. By the way, in his lifetime Rachmaninoff was primarily known as a formidable pianist, and second as a composer. His reputation as a composer grew after his death. I think. I agree that a discussion of his wealth is inappropriate, I'm sorry I brought that up. However the wealth of his grandson Alexandre is mentioned in the Swiss documentary in one of the external links. And his heigth is mentioned specifically by the presenter of the Swiss documentary, indicating that that was something exceptional, especially taking into account that we are talking about almost a century ago when a man measuring 193 cm was a curiosity: the average European adult male was about 175 cm tall in those days. Funny that on screen he doesn't look so much taller than his wife; taller yes but not 30 cms. In the Swiss documentary there are a lot of photos on the wall and film sequences with him and his family around the villa. Hansung02 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that such personal information would be useful or interesting. Surely it would, but that's not how Wikipedia articles work. We summarize secondary sources, so we'd have to identify that such information is actually discussed prominently in secondary sources to be worth inclusion. For instance, Boulez is famous for his dogmatic character, and since it has been much discussed, there's a section on it in his article.

"Personal life" sections are not typical for composer articles at all; both of the articles you site, Moussorgsky and Delius, don't have such sections. In terms of family-related info, Rachmaninoff's family is virtually unknown and I see no reason to have a separate section discussing them. As for a section on personality/character, again, we'd have to identify its inclusion in secondary sources, which does seem more likely.

in his lifetime Rachmaninoff was primarily known as a formidable pianist, and second as a composer–this doesn't really mean anything for our article on him. Again, we follow secondary sources, not primary. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I'll see what I can find in the books and articles cited. Hansung02 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to note that wikipedia has a separate ARTICLE on the appearance of Mozart. :) 86.63.168.150 (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I mean ;-)! Hansung02 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"...the articles you site, Moussorgsky and Delius..." I didn't cite any articles; I mentioned Mussorgsky from what I read about him in Collins' Encylopedia of Music, edition 1977, and I mentioned a Ken Russell biopic on Delius, from 1963, not an article. Hansung02 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)