Piano Sonata No.2 in B flat minor Op.36 Movement I. Allegro agitato
Sergei Rachmaninoff Lyrics


We have lyrics for these tracks by Sergei Rachmaninoff:


nocturne ор.15 no. 2 in f sharp major Luôn bên em là tôi Lâu nay không chút thay đổi Thế…


The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found
Most interesting comments from YouTube:

@AshishXiangyiKumar

Lugansky –
00:00 – Mvt 1, Allegro agitato
10:24 – Mvt 2, Non allegro
17:19 – Mvt 3, Allegro molto

Kocsis –
24:28 – Mvt 1, Allegro agitato
33:45 – Mvt 2, Non allegro
40:26 – Mvt 3, Allegro molto



@dominicstorella1903

Lugansky –
00:00 – Mvt 1, Allegro agitato
10:24 – Mvt 2, Non allegro
17:19 – Mvt 3, Allegro molto

Kocsis –
24:28 – Mvt 1, Allegro agitato
33:45 – Mvt 2, Non allegro
40:26 – Mvt 3, Allegro molto



All comments from YouTube:

@AshishXiangyiKumar

Lugansky –
00:00 – Mvt 1, Allegro agitato
10:24 – Mvt 2, Non allegro
17:19 – Mvt 3, Allegro molto

Kocsis –
24:28 – Mvt 1, Allegro agitato
33:45 – Mvt 2, Non allegro
40:26 – Mvt 3, Allegro molto

@AshishXiangyiKumar

A little note on performance versions: there was perhaps no great composer who suffered as much crippling self-doubt as Rachmaninoff, and amidst a profusion of early (and misguided) reviews that called much of his work emptily virtuosic and extravagant, in 1931 he heavily revised the sonata, thinning many passages and taking a hatchet to many extraordinary transitionary passages, including some which contained important development of the first movement’s themes. (Rachmaninoff compared his own sonata’s length unfavourably to that of Chopin’s second sonata “which lasts nineteen minutes, and all has been said”.)

The 1931 version is pleasingly taut in some places, and disappointingly terse in others; Rachmaninoff never decided if he liked it more than the 1913 original, famously telling Horowitz to come up with his own version to perform.

Lugansky, like Horowitz, largely follows the 1913 original, but includes many passages from the 1931 version (the changes in typeface will alert you to the excerpts); Kocsis plays the 1913 version straight. Both performances are very different: Lugansky is elegant, perfectly voiced, with lots of attention to structural features of the music; Kocsis is white-hot, almost painfully intense. It’d be a sin to only know one and not the other, so I really encourage you to listen to both versions, though doing it back-to-back is a bit much even for me.

@udatchi

It's so beautiful I want to compose music like this some day :D Although my favorite composer is hands down Chopin <3

@harryandruschak2843

I do think this is the first time I have heard this work. This sort of music is rarely played on our two local classical music radio stations. So I really appreciate getting a double-dose.

@ianmoore5502

Nonsense, 10 loops a day minimum is the recommended dosage

@jeremyheng84

The 1931 movement 2 and 3 are unbearably sparse to listen to!

18 More Replies...

@faktablad

Fun fact: the main descending theme (which first appears as F-E-Eb-Db-Bb-F), labeled by you as T.I-1B, is actually the first numbers of the Fibonacci sequence in terms of half-steps: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5

@JoshuavanderVeen

I've thought of that before, I've never had the thought voiced though 😆 made my day.
Now I have a new way to compose...

@Raikaska

... I always wonder how and why that particular sequence got that "mystical" status. Interesting as a composing tool, as anything else, but nothing else? Either the foundations for it's so called "mysticity" allegations are shaky, or I've never been properly introduced to it (researched a bit, but could never find something substantial).
I know how to derive the assymptotic convergence, and understand that's where the "golden ratio" connection comes from, but fail to see why thats musically "relevant" (i'd say it's BS to me now, actually). Still, its interesting to see the way people compose with it. Was it intentional in this case though?

@faktablad

@@Raikaska who knows if it was intentional or not. It's fascinating to hear math concepts translated into sound, but I agree it doesn't mean that it was intentional, nor does it mean that the music has a mystical quality necessarily. Math is maybe the most fundamental of sciences but there's more to music and mystical experiences than just that.

However I do use math all the time in my composing and visual art. As a composing tool it's fantastic, and it's a great way to auto-generate things with certain qualities that I'm looking for.

More Comments

More Versions