Piano Concertos: Why is Brahms 2 considered more mature than Rachmaninoff 3?

Question

**I'm not completely satisfied with the answers so far, so more answers please! There's a nice bounty to be had!** These two titanic concertos are two of the most difficult often played concertos in piano literature, so they are talked about a lot. In most discussions, forums, or interviews with pianists I've seen, many pianists really love both. In Alexis Weissenberg's commentary on the Rach 3, he writes "the Rachmaninoff Third has kept, and will keep forever and without the slightest doubt, a place apart in my heart. I still think it is the most gloriously written concerto for the piano." Most everybody calls it the hardest concerto that is performed often (perhaps due to the movie *Shine*), and a ton of people love, admire and respect (and fear) it. Almost everything I've read about the Brahms 2 describes it as a very mature and grand work, requiring only the best and most mature musical interpretations. On the other hand, I've never seen the Rach 3 described as mature; glorious, saccharine, passionate, beautiful yes, but never mature. A lot of pianists seem to enjoy performing Rach's works, but they too will say that it's just "excessive climaxes" or something like that. Why, in these two very technically difficult, powerful, popular, and dare I say similar works, is there such an unanimous opinion people think that Brahms's concerto is mature and musical while Rachmaninoff's is less mature, "frivolous", “schmaltzy”, or "film score - esque"? Given that this opinion is so prevalent, is there something inherent about maturity in music that is objective and not subjective? Should maturity be something that music should strive for? (This question isn’t limited to these two composers; late Beethoven is almost always described as extremely profound or transcendental, but rarely (if ever) Rachmaninoff or Liszt) ~~ I know this is a subjective question, but I hope that I've asked it well enough that it is a more constructive subjective question, which is allowed by site rules.

Answer 1

I have always read in books and heard from colleagues that Brahms is regarded as more profound and mature, and has more depth than Rachmaninoff in general. In the case of the Brahms Concerto 2 versus Rachmaninoff Concerto 3, part of the reason is that Rachmaninoff was 36 when he wrote Concerto No. 3, and Brahms was 48 when he wrote Concerto No. 2. That may not seem like such a huge difference, but when you look at all the other works Brahms wrote leading to Concerto 2, you can see a similar journey in Rachmaninoff's life. Both were composers whose earlier works were more virtuosic, flashy, and melodically memorable; while later in life both composers tended to value harmony, structure, and a certain spiritual other-worldly quality that comes with more maturity.

One might say that Brahms matured faster than Rachmaninoff due to their differences in priorities in life- Rachmaninoff was more of a performing pianist whose composing was more to serve audiences. Brahms was also a pianist, but spent more time composing and perfecting his craft. It is also worth noting that compared with their other works, Rachmaninoff's Concerto No. 3 is more of a middle period work within his life, and for Brahms, Concerto 2 is more of a late period work created during his most mature years. Therefore, there is a consensus that one needs more maturity and depth to interpret the Brahms 2nd Concerto than the Rachmaninoff 3rd Concerto. Structurally, the Brahms is a bit more complex and requires both refinement and maturity, whereas younger pianists can relate to and perform Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto more readily, as it still contains some of his youthful vigor. Both are certainly mature works, but I agree that Brahms 2nd Concerto is more mature than the Rachmaninoff 3rd Concerto.

Answer 2

I would say that the adjective "mature" is mostly in the eye of the beholder here. My guess is that the phenomenon you are describing has to do with the relative presence or lack of restraint, i.e., trying to do more with less. Brahms utilizes this principle with great skill. Rach doesn't usually do this. In my opinion, both composers are masters of the piano and of the orchestra. Personally, though, I don't think this is a good definition of "mature." My definition would be more along the lines of this: does the composer know what he is doing with regard to the form and the instruments in question? By this definition, both Brahms 2 and Rach 3 are quite mature works, written by composers who were both masters of the craft.

Answer 3

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. ...Brahms 2 is a very mature, grand work, requiring only the best and most mature musical interpretations. ... Rachmaninoff, as you said, has a totally different temperament; mature; glorious, saccharine, passionate. Different personalities create different styles.