Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Case for a single article on the 24 Preludes?

At present it's somewhat diffuse. We have the following articles:

• Prelude in C-sharp minor (Rachmaninoff)
• Preludes, Op. 23 (Rachmaninoff), which has links to articles on the individual 10 preludes of that opus
• Preludes, Op. 32 (Rachmaninoff), which is a stub at best. The 13 preludes do not have individual articles.
• The relevant category is Category:Preludes by Sergei Rachmaninoff.

This schema reflects the fact that SVR did not, as far as we know, set out originally to compose a set of 24 preludes, one in each key. That idea came to him later - but when, exactly? When he composed Op. 23, was it merely a fluke that they were all in different keys, none of which duplicated the C-sharp minor prelude, or was it by design? I prefer to think it was design.

I haven't found any cite that tells us what his thinking was on this matter, or exactly when he decided that Op. 32 would be a completion of the set of 24 that he had half done up to that point. All we know for sure is that, by Op. 32 he had definitely decided to plug the gaps, so to speak. See [1]. I'd love to hear any information that expands on my limited knowledge.

The point is that, however it may have started out, it did eventually evolve quite deliberately into a set of 24 preludes covering all the major and minor keys. The full set has been recorded by many pianists, including: Howard Shelley, Moura Lympany, Michael Ponti, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Steven Osborne, Peter Katin, Ruth Laredo, Dimitri Alexeev, Eldar Nebolsin, Sergio Fiorentino, Boris Berezovsky, Rustem Hayroudinoff, Stewart L. Gordon, Mathieu Gaudet, Barbara Nissman, Megumi Fujita, and no doubt others. (There are also a number of recordings of just Op, 23, or just Op. 32, and too many to count of the C-sharp minor alone. But probably almost as many of the G minor and various other favourites.)

Give this background, I think many of our beloved readers would be interested in an article on the set as a whole, not just on the 3 individual opuses or the individual preludes. They could be reading this while listening to one of the above recordings, for example. Do we even need separate articles on the individual preludes? On balance, they serve a good purpose; they can contain detailed information that would be too much for the main article. And people do have their favourites that they’re interested in reading about. That means we’re gonna have to write the remaining 13 articles for Op. 32. I’m sure that’s on a few people’s to do lists anyway.

At present, the templates show all Rachmaninoff's opuses separately, regardless of their contents, and that works. But the 24 Preludes, unlike any other of his works, also belong together in a way that transcends that academic opus-based approach. I would suggest this be an additional item on the templates, so that people can approach them from any angle that suits them.

Is this ringing anyone's chimes at this stage? I don't want to invest any more time or effort into it if it isn't going to be a goer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'm advocating a unified article (which would not necessarily mean getting rid of the separate ones, but may mean a little modification of them), is that there now exists Music written in all 24 major and minor keys, which discusses the Rachmaninoff preludes quite extensively as a group of 24, and it would be good to have an article to complement that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've considered all your thoughtful and detailed responses (* cough *), rejected every last one of them, and written Preludes (Rachmaninoff). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Music samples and fair use

We need some critical comment on the particular performances featured in the sound clips otherwise a claim of fair use is not justified. See WP:Fair use#Audio clips:

Brief song clips may be used for identification of a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by critical or historical commentary and when attributed to the copyright holder.

Right now there's no critical or historical commentary. Also, there's no copyright attribution. Ideally, we would have multiple performances of the same music and a critical comparison of them.

Grover cleveland 07:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannot comment on all, only some: Liszt recording 1919, no copyright of the work by Liszt. Other rights would lie with Edison (their legal successors). However, I once read that producer's rights expire after something like 95 years which would be soon, 2014. Unless someone can prove that they are indeed the legal successors of Edison within the next two years, the whole thing has entered public domain.

Chopin Waltz: No company mentioned. Chopin is public domain. 1921 recording rights would expire 2016.

The first, original Prélude was not copyrighted, and is public domain. No copyright in Russia then. Consequently, Rachmaninoff and others founded a publishing house in Berlin and from then on they copyrighted their work there. This does not seem to be the very first Prélude, but without pruduction details no comment can be made, with the exception that Rachmaninoff's copyrights would expire in most jurisdictions 2018. Before using this information, it should be checked with a copyright specialist as several countries' legislations could be involved in the matter. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 144.136.192.32 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The proper spelling

The correct spelling is actually Rakhmaninov. I am a Russian person and I know the translation of all Russian to English words. If you spelt it Rachmaninov, it would translate to saying Ra-ch man-in-ov, which is not correct. The ending should be ov, because no Russian names actually end in -off. They end in -ov.

This is correct, but Russian romanization is often inconsistent. For example we have Feodor Chaliapin (actually Fyodor Shalyapin), or Pyotr Tchaikovsky (actually Pyotr Chaykovsky). That inconsistency is probably also caused by frequent immigrations, as other countries have different naming conventions. Nethertheless, Wikipedia usually follows the most common style, and this is probably "Sergei Rachmaninoff". Regards. --Tomcat (7) 09:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have the fact that he migrated to the West and he used Latin script to spell his name "Sergei Rachmaninoff". If we spell it any other way, that would be tantamount to us telling the composer, posthumously, that he spelt his own name incorrectly. And that would be the most appalling arrogance on our part. This question was settled conclusively back in 2008. Rachmaninoff has spoken! -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Characterising Rachmaninoff's musical style in lede

There has been a bit of an edit war over this passage:

"Early influences of Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and other Russian composers gave way to a thoroughly personal idiom that included a pronounced lyricism, expressive breadth, structural ingenuity, and a tonal palette of rich, distinctive orchestral colors." [Citation: Norris, New Grove, 2nd. ed. , 707.]

While I to an extent understand the concern about it being over-florid in style, I think to remove altogether any listing of the characteristics of R's music is not helpful to those who are less able to deduce those characteristics from the specified influences. So I've replaced the passage with:

"Early influences of Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and other Russian composers gave way to a personal style notable for its lyricism, expressiveness, structural ingenuity, and his use of rich orchestral colors." [same citation]

I hope that works, but if anyone is uneasy about this, say so and I'll try quoting various authorities direct instead (unfortunately I don't have the Norris immediately to hand, so it would have to be quotes from other books I have with me). Alfietucker (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a quick history: User:Jonyungk added that wording back in May 2008 with this change. The spelling mistakes were eventually corrected, of course, but nobody seems to have questioned what the cited source says, specifically. The florid wording makes me think there might be a problem with a too-close paraphrasing of the New Grove source. It would be great to have the relevant paragraph of that book quoted here to help us sort out what direction to go next.

Three days ago, User:Toccata quarta removed the florid prose citing the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which has a puffery section dealing with hyperbolic praise words. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that a discussion on this has even been created, but then again WP:WTA, along with WP:BOLDTITLE and WP:PSTS, is among Wikipedia's most disregarded guidelines/policies. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view (see also WP:PEA). "His music is lyrical" is not neutral, and neither is the claim that "his music is expressive, structurally ingenious and colourful". Unless we are quoting a WP:RS, such comments should not be present in Wikipedia articles. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be disappointed, Toccata quarta - editing here is not about imposing what one particular editor believes is right, but about achieving consensus, and that is particularly important if other editors (plural) disagree with an edit (which is clearly the case here). Anyway, thank you for joining the discussion. To go through your objections one by one: 1) "His music is lyrical" [i.e. in actual text "a personal style notable for its lyricism"]. Thank you for picking me up on that - I so habitually assume that "lyrical" means melodious, but on checking on-line dictionaries find this is far from an established definition. So how about changing it to "melodious" (a statement of fact)? Still, I think it could be argued that it is an appropriate description given Rachmaninoff's song writing, and the fact his melodies are often sublimated songs or Orthodox plainchant. So maybe "noted for its song-like melody"? 2) "his music is expressive" - certainly a point of fact, especially given that he was a near contemporary of Stravinsky who and Hindemith who both famously tried to *avoid* making their music expressive. It's expressive in the sense that it expresses emotions (famously melancholy) and often a narrative (e.g. Isle of the Dead, The Rock etc.). 3) "structurally ingenious" - obviously it can be argued this needs substantiation. But given the citation this is not something invented by the editor who originally put that text in. 4) "colourful" - presumably you mean, as in "rich orchestral colors", which actually is not quite the same thing: "richly orchestrated" is fairly standard shorthand for "uses a great variety instruments" and can also imply, particularly in the context of "rich orchestral colors", that the composer has "blended" these instrumental colors to achieve his sounds - as opposed, for instance, to Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich and Stravinsky who tended to use instruments more soloistically. So, even assuming that no source is involved (not the case here, I believe), I think the only contentious statements are "lyricism" and about Rachmaninoff's ingenious structures. Perhaps that would be best made into a direct quote. Any further thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you do not understand encyclopedic neutrality. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Can you please explain how my explanation above led to your conclusion - I'm sure it would be very helpful to me and other editors in resolving this issue. Alfietucker (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things, folks. First, we're talking about something I added FIVE YEARS AGO, when I was relatively new on Wiki. Should I use the Norris material now, I would include quote marks and attribute ("According to musicologist Geoffrey Norris ..." for example). Second (and related), while Wiki is supposed to have a NEUTRAL POV, it (a) does not mean it can include NO POV, (b) does not mean it cannot cite a POV as long as the source is mentioned and referenced accordingly and (c) does not mean that more than one POV can be cited to offer, if not an absence of such, at least a basis upon which a reader could use to weigh and assess accordingly.

Like Toccata quarta, I'm slightly distressed this discussion is here at all but perhaps not for the same reason. Wiki is reputed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That to my mind means that if there is something that you don't like in an article and you can arguably improve the article by changing, you amend it accordingly and move on. The fact this article is apparently being argued rather than simply fixed FIVE YEARS after the fact would suggest sloth in the very long interim and a preference for carping over direct action, despite any positive intent.Jonyungk (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to gently point out that I did indeed try to fix the problem, and it is only because an editor demolished my attempt on what seemed to me a false premise that I brought it to Talk here, in line with WP:BRD. Otherwise I think I'm in agreement with you, Jonyungk, except did you mean at "c" to say "does not mean that more than one POV can *not* be cited to offer [etc]" - i.e. it should be possible to offer two clearly sourced and contrary POVs for readers "to weigh and assess accordingly"?

Also, do you have the relevant Geoffrey Norris passage to hand to quote, as Binksternet suggested might help? Alfietucker (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Norris book was accessed from the library of a local college I was attending at the time. A quick search on Google Books or Amazon might unearth an online copy. Otherwise, a visit to said college would be needed for me to access the book. Since my time these days is extremely limited, though, I can't promise anything. However, since articles this size are supposed to have a three- or four-paragraph lede, why doesn't someone write a new lede that hopefully upon which the majority could agree? (I believe I did at one point but it was cut down to the point of virtual deletion—endemic of the contention Alfietucker had made here.)Jonyungk (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry. At least the lede seems to have settled lately, though I'm not sure about the word "melodicism", which seems unnecessarily ugly. But I thought I'd leave that and see what other editors think. Alfietucker (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jonyungk, your recommendation of the use of "According to musicologist Geoffrey Norris" underscores the likelihood that this article has carried an example of too-close paraphrasing, or even copyright violation, for five years. This is not a minor problem to shrug off. I think a rewrite of the lead is needed. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet: We're talking about something I wrote FIVE YEARS AGO about a practice I've long since stopped using. YEARS. How 'bout we get f-ing real here, folks, and stop this f*&@ing witch hunt?Jonyungk (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey calm down, both of you! So let's see if we can get that part of the lede re-written. FWIW, I think with all the rewriting (even in the past week or so), and the given citation, I doubt this would qualify as a copyright violation. But I think there's room for improvement. Alfietucker (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, what about adding to the poor Edvard Grieg's lead a sentence characterizing his style, please?--24.186.223.176 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that matter. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Piano Concerto No. 3

It's written "The cadenza of Piano Concerto No. 3 is famous for its large chords", but I can't see any large chords. They seem quite normal. Everyone who can reach an octave would be able to play them. Please give a better example.--2.246.34.238 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "dense chordal writing" would make more sense. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Spelling again

No matter what is correct, but can you please keep the spelling consistent in this article? Both -off and -ov are found. --2.245.90.48 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but almost all -ov's are from quotes, the spellings of which we do not tamper with. I found only one -ov that was part of our text, and that was in a footnote. I fixed it. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Old and new style dates

It's not a question of gaining consensus for a date format. We are bound to follow the Manual of Style.

Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752, and Russia from 14 February 1918.

Tchaikovsky didn't die on 6 November 1893 which an editor has just changed the article to. He died on 25 October. To write 6 November is as wrong as writing

Samuel Pepys wrote in his diary on 10 January 1661/2 "I sat down to end my journell for this year,..." when he actually wrote it on Tuesday, 31 December 1661. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have applied {{OldStyleDate}} as necessary. I have also provided an online citation to confirm that 20 March 1873 is the correct Julian calendar. In the persondata invisible template near the end of the article, I just used 20 March 1873 (Julian calendar) since the use of templates within that template is not recommended. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jc3s5h. Standard references list Rachmaninoff's birthdate as April 1, and that should stand in this article as well. Adding the {{OldStyleDate}} parenthetically is okay, as long as the Gregorian date is prominent.MisterCSharp (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Before Jc3s5h wakes up (he's on the eastern seaboard of the United States) please list the standard references which you claim list Rachmaninoff's birthday as April 1 (April fools is not for another three weeks). I am sure that there are hundreds of references from nineteenth and twentieth century Russia that give it as March 20. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would list both dates, as is done with {{OldStyleDate}}, simply because many English speakers will not be familiar with the idea that the Julian calendar was still in use in the 20th century. If we're lucky, they'll have a vague notion that it was in use in the distant past, but the idea it was used within the lifetime of their parents or grandparents will just be too much of a shock for them to deal with. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think it's well fixed in the public consciousness that the Russians celebrate Christmas on 7 January. Yours would be a "belt - and - braces" approach, in which the two dates would appear with the note provided in addition to prevent modern - day calendar ignorati being bamboozled. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:MisterCSharp, I dispute your edit summary for [this change], "guidelines state convert Julian to Gregorian - not other way around." The only applicable guideline I'm aware of says "dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar." It goes on to say "the dating method used should follow that used by reliable secondary sources". But no one has presented reliable sources showing that the vital statistics of Russian composers who lived before the switch to the Gregorian calendar are normally converted to Gregorian in English language articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Using the {{OldStyleDate}} template prevents any confusion and brings us in line with other standard reference works (e.g. the New Grove, which gives "March 20/April 1" in their opening). Antandrus (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The template does create confusion. The Manual of Style does not say use it. The reader is interested in facts about the subject of the article - he doesn't want a multiplicity of dates which are of no interest to him and only serve to confuse. If he wants to investigate the arcana of different calendar systems he can click on the footnote provided beside the date. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

'Confusion' is exactly the problem you introduce by removing the template though -- our article would then have a date that does not match other reference sources. Only a small minority of readers have even heard of Julian and Gregorian calendars; we provide a helpful link within the template so they can read about this issue. Modern reference works use both dates (see example here, since the New Grove is behind a paywall). The template has long been standard practice on Wikipedia; see Igor Stravinsky and Alexander Scriabin for other examples. I don't understand how removing the both-dates template could possibly be an improvement. Antandrus (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All the calendars, all the newspapers of the time gave 20 March. Stop wikilawyering. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering...interesting term. Based on Antandrus's examples, not to mention Vladimir Horowitz, Modest Mussorgsky, and a host of others, I feel there is precedent to list the old style parenthetically.MisterCSharp (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus on this article is not affected by what happens elsewhere. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, lol. Antandrus (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

To all -- this is indeed what the {{OldStyleDate}} template is for. And yes, we do take into account what "happens elsewhere" -- on Wikipedia, to have project-wide consistency, and outside of Wikipedia, to conform to standard best practices. Antandrus (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Russian spelling

I believe it is inconsistent and looks very strange to spell the last name Рахма́ниновъ with an ending ъ (the pre 1918 spelling), when his first name and patronymic Серге́й Васи́льевич are spelled according to post 1918 rules. You can't mix and match between the two spelling conventions. If you want to use the information to, for instance, look up Rachmaninoff in a Russian dictionary you would certainly use the modern spelling. Revelj (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@MisterCSharp:, if you're so keen to preserve the old style, why don't you preserve the old style date, which the Manual of Style mandates? And if Gregorian is standard as you claim, why haven't you changed William Shakespeare's date of birth to 3 May? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

156.61.250.250, welcome back from being blocked. Read what Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote about consistency.MisterCSharp (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I know Ralph as an originator of witty aphorisms. I scrolled through his article but I don't see anything about consistency. If you were consistent you would rampage through Wikipedia changing the date of Charles I's death to February 8, 1649 and other such nonsense. Instead you confine your nonsense to converting the dates used in Russia under Old Style to New Style. It's up to other editors to rampage through Wikipedia putting this right. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Masterpiece"

I don't like this statement from the lead: Rachmaninoff's masterpiece, however, is his choral symphony The Bells, in which all of his talents are fused and unified. First, it is not neutral, since "what is his best work" is a matter of personal taste. I also do not like this: In some of his early orchestral pieces he showed the first signs of a talent for tone painting, which he would perfect in The Isle of the Dead,[3] and he began to show a similar penchant for vocal writing in two early sets of songs, Opp. 4 and 8, because this again is expressing a personal opinion of the source ("would perfect") I think such subjective assessments do not belong to the lead, and I have removed them. Offliner (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal taste does not determine the best work of a composer - for instance, no serious music critic would call Beethoven's 2nd symphony his "best work" simply because it might be his/her personal favorite. It is the responsibility of informed, educated opinions of the majority of musical scholars to determine a pared group of a composer's works into the most influential and best of compositions. It may seem like a fine line, but your statement is far too general to be accurate. That said, "The Bells" is certainly one of Rachmaninoff's best works, but the musical consensus is no one piece of his is the best above all others. I agree no such statements belong in the lede of any composer's article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Strongly and emphatically disagree (with HammerFilmFan). It doesn't matter how much of a "scholar" you are, and it doesn't mean a bean if all of the "scholars" pick the same work. "Best" is still completely subjective, completely a matter of opinion. You could say which is the most elaborately contrapuntal, which is the most harmonically dense, which is the least or most traditional, and so on, but there's no way you can authoritatively declare which is "best". "Best" doesn't work that way. 66.188.136.28 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation not needed

A citation for the picture of Rachmaninoff by one of his Steinway grand pianos ([[File:Rachmaninoff - Steinway grand piano.jpg]]) is not needed, because the piano's design is the Steinway design. It is very clearly if you look at for example the piano legs' ornaments and the "sharp" wood at the left (and right) of the keys. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no way for an average viewer to know that, nor do you provide any proof of your assertation. Why not simply remove the word Steinway from the caption. Or is this part of your continuing Steinway propaganda crusade?THD3 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The grand piano is a large part of the picture, so it is appropriate to write the brand of the piano.

Citation not needed because - an example: Average viewers can not see that this picture (Automobile - at the top right) is a car made by Karl Benz, but nevertheless it is not necessary to add a reference. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no proof of this piano being a Steinway. I'm adjusting the image text to say "at the piano" instead. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Binksternet made his comment according to what THD3 wrote on his talk page: User talk:Binksternet#Steinway. Very embarrassing! Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention it doesn't matter. At all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again: Citation not needed because - an example: Average viewers can not see that this picture (Automobile - at the top right) is a car made by Karl Benz, but nevertheless it is not necessary to add a reference. And like the picture in the lead of Automobile there is no proof that it is a Karl Benz car.

Regarding "Not to mention it doesn't matter. At all.": The grand piano is a large part of the picture, so it is appropriate to write the brand of the piano. And like the picture in the lead of Automobile there is a picture of a Karl Benz car. Like it is mentioned that it is a Karl Benz car it can also be mentioned that it is a Steinway grand piano. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Having a peek at the history of this matter which goes far beyond Rachmaninov's page, I can't assume good faith any more. It's simple -- consensus is against you for putting all this stuff about Steinway into various pages. An yes, it really doesn't matter what kind of piano it is. It's a piano. There's nothing specifically special about it. Cars aren't quite the same matter because there's far more variance in how the look, their features, how they perform, and a number of other things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

- "Cars aren't quite the same matter because there's far more variance in how the look, their features, how they perform, and a number of other things.". I see that you think that all pianos are the same. You have no knowledge about pianos, so you comments about pianos are completely uninteresting.

- And there is no consensus, just Binksternet, THD3, Karljoos, Madcoverboy and Alexrexpvt who consistenly bach each other up - see for example THD3's comment on User talk:Binksternet#Steinway. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion remains my own. When it intersects with other editors, suddenly you are the target of a cabal. Why would so many other editors agree, independently, about your editing activity? Could it be, perhaps, something to do with the nature of your editing activity? Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"independently" - hahaha... look at the users talk pages. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You would say that five users agreeing with each other againt the one you isn't a consensus? Seriously? As for not knowing about pianos, well, I know enough that what I said is true. Yes of course different makers will be different, but not so much that it matters under normal circumstances. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫: Didn't you read: "And there is no consensus, just Binksternet, THD3, Karljoos, Madcoverboy and Alexrexpvt who consistenly bach each other up - see for example THD3's comment on User talk:Binksternet#Steinway.".

To ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫: Remember to remove "Karl Benz" under the picture in the lead in Automobile.

I give up. Whatever, go on and get yourself blocked by edit warring. I'll be here once again wondering what the hell is wrong with the world. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Automobile#Brand of car. Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now wait just a gosh darn minute. The reader may not be able to tell what kind of piano that is in the photo (it looks to me nothing like any Steinway I've ever played, by the way; maybe they looked different in the old days--or maybe not), but surely he (homo, not vir) can tell it's some kind of piano. Why do we say "Rachmaninoff at the piano"? It seems to me we'd might as well label the photo "Rachmaninoff with two eyes and two ears". And even if we couldn't tell it's a piano (a very far-fetched assumption), what does it matter if he's "at the piano" or not? I vote the caption say "Rachmaninoff in the early 1900's" etc. TheScotch (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"was a Russian"

Apparently, the guy was born in Russia, all right. But the question is what nationality (citizenship) did he have when he died? Russia had stopped existing at the end of 1922 (in the legal sense, for that matter). Thus, if we insist that he kept being "Russian" that, in fact, means he was Soviet (?).Axxxion (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The same one he was born with, as is everyone's: He was a Russian. Nationality is one's ethnicity, usually associated with what one's native language is. For instance, "Austrian" is not a nationality - it is a political term; Austrians are composed of a majority of Germans, with some Italians and Swiss and Hungarians (Magyars.) No one would consider the U.S.A. or Austria a 'nation-state' in the manner that Hungary is. Anyway, in Rachmaninoff's case, he had both Russian and American citizenships.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

No, your question is "what nationality did he have when he died?" I don't think this is necessarily anyone else's question, and anyway you already appear to have answered it (American citizenship) to your own satisfaction. I believe it was Stravinsky (another expatriate Russian) who described Rachmaninoff as "six feet of Russian misery". --RobertG ♬ talk 09:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, i am pretty certain this is not solely my question. It may appear to be a trivial one to a born American who is used to civil liberties and freedom to travel, but for pretty much everyone else the question about what legal status he had is a paramount one. I wrote "American" simply on the basis of his apparent permanent residence; this in no way signifies he was a US citizen - some Russian refugees (from the 1917 revolution) preferred to stay in exactly that status, that is techinically without a citizenship.Axxxion (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, who are you calling an American? Watch your language!  :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

He did become an American citizen, on 1 February 1943, eight weeks before he died. This is revealed in Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff, a separate article. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To add a non-Wiki source, Sergei Rachmaninoff: a bio-bibliography By Robert Cunningham states the following: "On 1 February 1943 he [Rachmaninoff] and his wife became natualized American citizens." I have added this source to the article.THD3 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that Rachmaninoff, notwithstanding his taking American citizenship scarcely two months before his death in 1943, was to all intents and purposes a Russian composer. Certainly he had composed all his music by 1941, and his last work - the Symphonic Dances - significantly quotes from his own setting of the Russian Orthodox All-Night Vigil. He was throughout his creative life first and foremost a Russian, and it is surely significant that his grave is marked with a Russian Orthodox cross. I can only imagine that he took American citizenship for the most mundane of practical reasons, and the fact he did so years after he had ceased composing seems to me entirely significant. No reputable authority that I know of describes him as anything other than a Russian composer, and I think with good reason. I will therefore reword the opening paragraph of the article. Alfietucker (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a creeping tendency to claim Rachmaninoff as an 'American composer' and 'American pianist' - which seems to me nonsense. He wasn't trained in America but in Russia, and was buried as a Russian. No doubt if the Soviet system had collapsed in his lifetime he would have returned to Russia. Please read my previous comment for further reasons why I have deleted those categories from the article. Alfietucker (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree -- he's Russian, and nothing else makes any sense. Claiming him as somehow an "American" composer because he took citizenship in the U.S. late in his life is needless pedantry, at best. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that Rachmaninoff DID NOT take American citizenship for mundane and practical reasons only. What a disrespectful thing to say! Refugees, and that is what he and his family were, typically take citizenship very seriously. And the fact that he became an American citizen only shortly before he died seems completely irrelevant as the naturalization process began years before when he did not know that he was going to die. Further, though his composing dropped dramatically after leaving the Soviet Union, he was not just a composer and he did a great deal of performing and conducting in the United States. I might add, in 1943 when he and his family were naturalized, it was not possible to hold duel Soviet and American citizenship, which means that he had to renounce the former, so he died an AMERICAN, not a Russian or Soviet, citizen. Jay Gregg (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article I suggest that Wikipedia do the same that is done in the case of Erich Wolfgang Korngold, an Austrian refugee who incidentally also became a U.S. citizen in 1943:

Erich Wolfgang Korngold (May 29, 1897 – November 29, 1957) was a Viennese composer born in Moravia, Austria-Hungary (present-day Czech Republic) and naturalized in the United States in 1943.

I suggest:

Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninoff ; (1 April 1873 – 28 March 1943), was a Russian born composer, pianist, and conductor who was naturalized in the United States in 1943. Jay Gregg (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Defective link

"(French) A complete and precise French site on Rachmaninoff"

No longer functional, if you click, you get this :

"Code promo et bons plans

Bientôt un site"

But nothing about Rachmaninoff !

--Alf.68 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf.68 (talk • contribs)

Rewrite of some wordy passages

In adding a few 'facts', I attempted a rewording of some of those passages where it seemed they might have been contributed by a non-native speaker originally, or had been translated from a non-English language source. The only aim was to improve brevity and clarity. Quite a few statements require citations in the article (as usual) and I intend to add some reasonable sources over the next week, as time permits (w/c 29 August 2016). Humboles (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox?

Sergei Rachmaninoff
Rachmaninoff in 1921, photographed by Kubey Rembrandt
Born	Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninoff Серге́й Васи́льевич Рахма́нинов 1 April [O.S. 20 March] 1873 Veliky Novgorod, Russian Empire
Died	28 March 1943(1943-03-28) (aged 69) Beverly Hills, California, U.S.
Cause of death	Melanoma
Resting place	Kensico Cemetery, Valhalla, New York, U.S.
Alma mater	Moscow Conservatory
Occupation(s)	Composer, pianist and conductor

The infobox here (right) was unilaterally deleted from the article without discussion. Should it be restored? Note this essay on the topic in general at WP:CMG. —  AjaxSmack  00:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Reference the wonderful biography by Seroff!

Rachmaninoff by Victor I Seroff

Encyclopedant (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Rachmaninov or Rachmaninoff?

Which one is "technically" correct? Why Rachmaninoff on Wikipedia and not Rachmaninov? ♥ Fredil 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rachmaninoff is the way he used to spell his name himself (and he spent about a half of his life in West). Goudzovski (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachmaninov redirects to this page. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And that settles it as far as we're concerned. However, it's an interesting question to consider. The Russian в is transliterated as "v", but transliterating a word letter for letter from one alphabet to another does not always reflect its proper pronunciation. The pronunciation of в varies. At the end of the last syllable in a word, it's devoiced and is pronounced "f". The spelling that Rachmaninoff preferred reflects this; he had to use a double f, because if he'd used a single f, most people would have seen "-of" and said " -ov" (because the word of is pronounced "ov"), thus defeating the purpose. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good answers. Thanks :) ♥ Fredil 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of umlaut fetishists who insist on using Händel instead of the spelling he himself used... --Blehfu (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It usually depends on the country where a name was first transliterated from Cyrillic into Latin characters, because that is then copied, logical or not. There is no 'correct' in this. In France they generally prefer the -off ending. In the English speaking world they prefer -ov, in a German environment it is -ow. Same pronounciation. Leaves us with the 'ch' which strictly speaking is German transliteration. To someone who has not heard the name spoken before, the -kh, Rakhmaninov, would be clearer. People who change country and find that their name is often mispronounced or misspelt, actually shrug their shoulders, and let the discrepancies live on. I forgot how the name is spelt on his gravestone. We might assume that the stonemason followed instructions correctly and use that because his widow would have ordered the headstone. 144.136.192.70 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Or we might not. My understanding is that the matter was settled five years ago, as outlined above. Whatever may appear on his gravestone, which by definition was carved after his death, will not outweigh the way he himself spelt his own name in the West while he was alive. That is the ultimate authority. Anything else would be how someone felt he ought to have spelt his name, but so what. All that matters is how he did spell his name. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos of Rachmaninoff's signature and his grave:

• http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2001/222/rachmaninoff1.jpg
• http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/4236/5421506_1.jpg?v=8C7F6D9650C8720

THD3 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps of use...

this thread discusses it in detail. Lethesl 12:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, next question: why does the transliteration given insist that х the cyrillic kha be transliterated "h" instead of the clearly more correct "ch" as in "loch"? Or at least a "kh", which forces the "loch" type of sound (which is very uncommon sound in English, and "loch" may be the only word that has it). It's a Greek "chi" after all, and is transliterated to English "ch" in all the Greek words that have it, too, like "Christ." Granted, this letter is not pronounced as most English "ch", but on the other hand, it's not a totally soft "h" either (I'm not even sure Russian has a voiceless h).

Next question is why the й short I "yot" at the end of "Sergei" gets turned into a "j"? If I am to believe Transliteration of Russian into English, the short i can at least as validly be given a standard British ĭ or y, and considering the Russian pronunciation of the last syllable, which is something like "gay" it should have one or the other. The end j may be "scholarly" but doesn't reproduce anything like English pronounciation of this word.

As with the "off" at the end of his last name, Rachmaninoff's tombstone chooses "Sergei" as the best transliteration, and as this is within some transliteration practice, who are we to argue with the composer himself? SBHarris 23:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Serge" (pronounced Serj or Serzh) and "Sergei" (pronounced sir-gay) are essentially the same names, except the former is French and the latter is Russian. Some Russian musicians like Koussevitsky who spent a lot of time abroad sometime preferred to adopt the French variant of the name. I have seen both the French and Russian spellings of the name used for Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff, however. My best guess is that "Sergei" is the more accurate of the two, but in countries like France they will probably continue to use "Serge". Sjpavlova (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What matters is common usage, not the preference of Wikipedia editors or how he spelled it himself in the Latin alphabet, or even how people find it spelt on the internet. My observation is that the more common use in English is Rachmaninov; though there may be a difference between US and non-US usage here, in which case it might be better, given his links with France, to use whatever spelling the French use. Deipnosophista (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Common usage" is difficult to quantify and is also transitory. For example, Deutsche Grammophon used to use the "off" spelling but now use "ov." The fact that Rachmaninoff lived in the United States in his later years, becoming a citizen of that country, signed his name with an "off", and it's written on his gravestone as "off" should have more weight than anything used in France.THD3 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the confusion about the "off" ending and the switch in recent years to "ov" is easily explained. It surprises me that the Russian speakers here have not weighed in on this issue, but then that probably is a result of the effectiveness of the Soviet system in eradicating the last traces of pre-revolutionary Russian. Prior to the Soviet era, Russian names ending in the "off" sound were spelled with an additional silent final letter called the "tvordi znak" or "hard sign" written "ъ"- thus Rachmaninoff's name was spelled during his time in Russia Рахманиновъ - using the "въ" combination which was rendered in the west as "ff" After the revolution, the "ъ" or tvordi znak was almost entirely dropped from the language however the pronunciation of these names did not change. Since the two letter combination was used in Russian to produce the correct "f" sound, I think it's a rather silly PC conformity to use "v" instead of "ff" these days since it guarantees a certain percentage of people will mispronounce it - not to mention the fact that Rachmaninoff and countless contemporaries of his signed their names with "ff" their entire lives. Gillartsny (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(Ъ - твёрдый знак - 'tviordyy znak' or 'tvyordyy znak'.) In modern transcription, of cause, Рахманинов in English is Rakhmaninov. Why not specify both variants? 93.80.131.120 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason why Slavs (not only Russians) do not contribute to futile debates such as this one is predominantly because wikipedia is not an authoritative publication. So why bother. The level of "knowledge" is apalling, to put it mildly. Just this section is an insult to cirilica (cyrillic as foreigners would say), brimming with errors.

For example, someone is debating about "X" and "transliterates is as "kha"... Seriously, you all need to go back to that elementary school and start from the scratch.

Then, a whole army of non-Slavic people comes here to debate the question and centres over the fact that Rahmanjinov himself used Rachmaninoff version when signing/giving his surname to others. Not one person noted that the question was "which is TECHNICALLY" correct.

And the answer is Rahmanjinov (in Latin alphabet). After all, he had inherited it from his father, whose surname was NOT Rachmaninoff.

Or how about the genius explaining the -off and the -ov "difference? The only thing that can be said is that the "explanation" is completely, utterly and absolutely wrong. Just as is the rest of the "Talk" section. All of it.

That is why no Russians/Slavs would join in. How do you talk with foreigners and tell them they are talking about things they have no idea of? Even better examples are the pages about serbo-croatian language. And respectively Serbian and Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin etc. May every city and a village of Yugoslavia forgive me for not mentioning their "historic" "language"... Don't have the time to list them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.5.7 (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

These (unsigned) comments have a very unfortunate tone. 'How do you talk with foreigners and tell them they are talking about things they have no idea of?' Well, if you really know better than all the other contributors, are you not the obvious choice to patiently explain their errors? An encyclopedia dispels ignorance by spreading knowledge (QED) so if contributors have gone horribly awry, correct them nicely or stay away. The briefest foray into some non-European wiki articles about (say) British mores soon reveals that misunderstanding is a universal failing, and probably any race on the planet could similarly complain about the misconceptions about it beyond its country's borders--and for historical reasons you well know, many more Slavs understand English than vice versa. Those who enquire about the pronunciation do so because they don't want to get it wrong out of respect for the speakers of the language concerned as much as out of intellectual curiosity. Humboles (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The composer's name in English is, and has been for a very long time, Rachmaninov. If you own 78s from the 1940s the labels will say 'Rachmaninoff', but that spelling is obsolete. No one writes about the 'Romanoff dynasty', not any more. If you've got the Previn recording of the Second Symphony from the 1970s the sleeve and label will say 'Rachmaninov' because we aren't living in the 1930s or 1940s, and we weren't even back then. The fact that Wikipedia can't get it right is... not surprising. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I wish people would stop talking about "the right" way to spell his name. There are numerous accepted transliteration systems, all with some degree of validity. Grove's Dictionary still, I believe, calls him "Rakhmaninov", which may be more "technically correct" than "Rachmaninoff", but as far as I know is the only authoritative publication that uses that version, so they're very much out on a limb there. They also tell us a lot about a composer called "Chaykovsky". Marks for technical correctness - 100%. Marks for recognizability among the general musical public - 0%. So, pinning one's position on technical correctness really doesn't work in such cases.

As for "Rahmanjinov" above, well, that just tries to encroach into pseudo-IPA territory and shoots itself in the foot in the process. Yes, the internal n is softened by the following i, but that is simply the way Russian soft vowels and their preceding consonants are pronounced. This is never acknowledged in any transliteration system, otherwise we'd be writing Ljenjin, Putjin, Staljin etc etc.

Some Russian names have a set-in-stone English version: Putin, Yeltsin, Lenin, Stalin, Oistrakh, Rostropovich, Shostakovich, Borodin, Mussorgsky ... so many others. In those cases, we never have to worry about whether to use the common version or some "technically correct" version; the decision has been made. In the Rachmaninoff-type cases, Wikipedia's protocols are about using the most commonly seen version in authoritative publications. The individual's own preferred spelling of their own Latin-alphabet-version name should also carry considerable weight. Hence Serge, not Sergei, and Koussevitzky (Where the hell did that z come from? But that's how he spelt it), not Koussevitsky, Kusevitsky, or anything else. But Sergei, not Serge, and Rachmaninoff, not anything else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick perusal of online retailers like Amazon demonstrates that User talk:Khamba Tendal's claim is nonsense. The Rachmaninoff spelling is still very common. There is no absolute "right" way to spell his name - which is why the opening paragraph includes various alternates. MisterCSharp (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A easy way to chicken out of the argument is to note his name as Rakhmaninov, as his name is officially in Russian in Cyrillic script that has to be translated to a standard. After he becomes officially American he should be referred to as Rachmaninoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.43.1 (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It should definitely be Rachmaninov. Just a paragraph or so down we see 'Rimsky-Korsakov', not 'Rimsky-Korsakoff'. Also someone already noted that no-one writes 'Romanoff'. It's spelled with two ffs on Wikipedia because it's dominated by Americans who insist upon it. One day I will go through this article and change every instance to Rachmaninov.Vanderloo (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

Per this unexplained removal of content, I have restored the version from 14:39, 5 April 2018. 2A00:23C4:9010:C400:8C12:C052:C189:AED3 (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Please seek a consensus here before making such changes. 2A00:23C4:9010:C400:8C12:C052:C189:AED3 (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Per this edit-summary, these changes constituted unexplained removal of cited content, and hence the edit-summary was perfectly accurate. 2A00:23C4:9010:C400:8C12:C052:C189:AED3 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As shown here you removed -1,295 bytes of information with the false edit summary "Undid revision 834404805 by Arjayay (talk) further unexplained removal of content" - your removal and your false edit summary. - Arjayay (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As you explain clearly, my changes represented further unexplained removal of content, and hence the summary was entirely accurate. 2A00:23C4:9010:C400:8C12:C052:C189:AED3 (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

IP you are the one removing cited content. Neither your edit summaries or your posts here have given an explanation for that. Please read WP:EW as well. MarnetteD|Talk 16:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of that, as I explained in the edit summaries. 2A00:23C4:9010:C400:8C12:C052:C189:AED3 (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to be aware of it - to quote your edit summary "unexplained removal of content" - when the fact is you are the one removing content without explanation. Looks to be a WP:CIR situation. MarnetteD|Talk 16:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"C Eb G C G" hand range – where from?

This chord is often quoted as an example for his large hand span. Is this from one of his compositions or where does this particular chord come from? -- megA (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is an issue, I'm going to write in that it needs a citation and hopefully if someone sees this afterwards and it's still without a citation then it can removed. 220.101.84.46 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sarcoma or melanoma?

The article lists Rachmaninoff's cause of death as sarcoma? What are the references for this? I had read and heard previously that he died of melanoma. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death was rapidly progressing melanoma. MHN8 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I read that he died of lung cancer. ? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:14 12 April, 2008 (UTC) I will search around next time I'm online to try and figure out

Tough one. None of my books gives the exact cause, including either edition of Grove. Sources on the internet are rather mixed. Does anyone have the biographies by Bertensson/Leyda, Norris, or Martyn? (there's lots of others on the bibliography list in Grove, but those are the ones in English). Antandrus (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Harrison says:

...further tests established that Rachmaninoff's illness was terminal. He had an uncommon form of cancer called melanoma, which had spread...

If that isn't sufficient, I'll consult BL and Norris tomorrow. And that whole part needs a massage, anyways. The doctors never told him, so it isn't right to say he was diagnosed with; it implies he knew. ALTON .ıl 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Harrison is sufficient. Probably the only reason it's not in the Grove bibliography is that it was written before Harrison. Thanks for finding that, Antandrus (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Um...melanoma is a form of skin cancer, probably the most well-known form, and it's not all that "uncommon". One of my sisters had it (and survived), and the husband of the best friend of my other sister died of it. Googling a bit, I discover that one in seven people will develop some kind of skin cancer at some point in their lives (I've already had an expensive skin cancer removed leaving a huge ugly scar) and 44,000 Americans are afflicted with melanoma in particular each year. It seems odd to discover that the editors here had apparently never heard of it. 66.188.136.28 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

This is gonna need some discussion.

This ended up being resolved as a footnote but I think more of the detail described here should have a place in the article, particularly considering Apr 2 is the date on the tombstone. MHN8 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

For starters, how can 20 March 1873 in the OS calendar equate to 2 April 1873 in the NS calendar - which is a 13-day gap - when there was only a 12-day gap at that time? It didn't increase to 13 days till 1900. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Modern "scholars" just made a mistake. Several sources state his birthday was on 20 March, hence 1 April in Gregorian.--GoP_T^C_N 10:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The current New Grove gives April 1, and they have the following note: "According to the Old Style calendar, he was born on 20 March 1873, yielding 1 April as the New Style date; but after emigrating from Russia in 1917, Rachmaninoff habitually celebrated his birthday using the 20th-century conversion principle of adding 13 days to the Old Style date. The plaque on his tomb thus bears the birthdate 2 April 1873." (Geoffrey Norris) So he chose to celebrate it using the more recent conversion, but technically 1 April is correct, therefore they use that in their article. We could solve it with a footnote. Antandrus (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Antandrus to the rescue once again. I know it would have been something very much like that. Lots of people celebrated their birthdays on the wrong days - some knowingly, some unwittingly - but that doesn't matter a tinker's cuss as to when they were actually born. It's not just "technically" correct to say he was born on 1 April - that is in fact the only correct date. And there should be an article about all the notable people who have the wrong birth dates on their graves (Szymanowski is another). A footnote would be a good idea. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are even a few in which the wrong birth year was given-- Doc Holliday's marker was only corrected recently (he was born 1851, not 1852) [2]. Gravestone errors (Minor and grave grave errors? ;)) would make a fascinating Wiki. SBHarris 01:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is wrong. On Wikipedia we give dates according to the calendar which was in use at the time - thus the last day of the Julian calendar here in England was 2 September, 1752, not 13 September. The same calendar was in use in Russia when Rachmaninoff was born - his birth and/or baptismal certificate would give the date 20 March 1873. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Changing the Lead Photo

I am strongly in favor of changing the lead photo for aesthetic reasons. There are plenty of less unflattering photos that do appear commonly in references. Is there any reason this should not be done?

(I had tried recently to include a colorized version of a commonly seen photo of SR as the lead, but it was suggested it did not comply with the guidelines for lead images. I had personally owned the colorized version and added it to Wikimedia Commons, and I would've liked to see it on the page, however since the colorized version is very new and therefore not seen in referenced works, I don't think it can be used as the lead.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHN8 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The image you used fails MOS:LEADIMAGE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the lead photo as it appears today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_cph.3a40575.jpg). Indeed, this photo is a standard reference photo that is used in numerous articles.MisterCSharp (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead photo seems fine. Dartslilly (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of infobox, better signature, uniformity Comment Suggestion Comment

The current infobox gives no valuable information. The top mentions his name which is already the article title, it does not show when this photo was taken and the signature is not transparent. I will start a centralized general discussion regarding signatures soon but for the time being, compare the current lead section with this one. Articles such as Frédéric Chopin, Richard Wagner, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, etc. follow the same principle although it is not an established rule such as the one where using infoboxes for composers is dissuaded.

In conclusion, I believe the edit improves the article by making the signature more suited and adding necessary information about when the photo was taken, as well as getting rid of an infobox with no information. Anyone may freely reply to this suggestion and give their opinion on this. Cheers! - Wretchskull (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Wretchskull, thanks for your contributions. Whenever infoboxes are involved, one should tread carefully. It is possibly the most heated and bitterly debated topic of all time in WP:CM, and entire books could be filled with the discussions. That being said, I have no objection to include a caption or your improved signature, I'm just advising you to not add or remove infoboxes without prior discussion. I am not opposed to signatures in general, like some editors are, and whose opinions I respect. I am opposed to adding signatures inside captions though, but that is best elaborated in a more centralized discussion. Cheers, intforce (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff family and Ivan the Great: checking sources required

Hello,

The current version of the article states the following:

Rachmaninoff was born into a family of the Russian aristocracy in the Russian Empire. The family name can be traced back to the 1400s when Yelena, the daughter of Stephen IV of Moldavia, married the eldest son of Ivan III Vasilyevich, Grand Prince of Moscow. A son named Vasily was nicknamed "Rachmanin", meaning "lazy" in Old Russian.

However, articles Ivan the Great, Ivan the Young and Elena of Moldavia all state that the marriage between them produced only one son, Dmitry Ivanovich (grandson of Ivan III) a.k.a. Dmitry the Grandson, himself Grand-Price of Moscow in 1498–1502. As a side note, Ivan III's eldest son (who died in 1490) was married to the daughter of Stephen III of Moldavia (a.k.a. Stephen the Great, r. 1457–1504), not Stephen IV (1506–1517–1527) who could hardly be the father-in-law of someone who died 16 years before his birth. everything in this purported ancestry sounds suspicious.

Is it possible for someone with access to the sources and knowledge of Russian to check this information? At first glance it would look like a family tradition based on imaginary claims to a glorious ancestry, something hardly surprising for nobility in Russia or any other country. Automated translation of Russian articles ru:Рахманиновы and ru:Рахманинов, Сергей Васильевич seem to indicate this as legend or family tradition, with differences (Vassily "Rachmanin" would be the son of a brother of Elena). If so, it must be stated as such, for instance with this wording:

Rachmaninoff was born into a family of the Russian aristocracy in the Russian Empire. The family tradition claims descent from a legendary Vasily, nicknamed "Rachmanin" (meaning "lazy" in Old Russian), who would have been a son of Elena, the daughter of Stephen III of Moldavia, and Ivan the Young, the eldest son of Ivan III, Grand Prince of Moscow.

Or shorter (and safer):

Rachmaninoff was born into a family of the Russian aristocracy in the Russian Empire. The family tradition claims descent from a legendary Vasily, nicknamed "Rachmanin" (meaning "lazy" in Old Russian), a supposed grandson of Stephen III of Moldavia.

In the absence of more information, I will replace the contested section with the proposed wording. Place Clichy (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done As this received no objection, I implemented the change. Place Clichy (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Given his US citizenship, shouldn't Rachmaninoff be listed as a Russian American?

It appears he lived in the US from 1918 to 1943 (his death), and he had US citizenship.

I think "Russian-American" is a better description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.240.230 (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Most sources refer to him simply as Russian rather than Russian-American. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Nikkimaria -- we use what the sources say, rather than making our own judgments about nationality. Leave that landmine-riddled field for others. Antandrus (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Besides, he had US citizenship for exactly one month before he died. This was after 25 years residence in the USA. He was not exactly in a big rush to get this done. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

And all of this is perfectly summarized in the lead. It is fine as it is. He's Russian with a tiny tiny bit of US citizenship waaaaay after the 11th hour. No change is needed. DBaK (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"tiny tiny bit of US citizenship" Is that like being a tiny tiny bit pregnant? The fact that he applied for American citizenship demonstrates that Rachmaninoff identified as American at the end of his life. The fact that Rachmaninoff's family refuse to allow his remains to be removed from America to be reinterred in Russia tends to support this view. In the Wikipedia article on Erich Wolfgang Korngold (a contemporary of Rachmaninoff) he is described as "an Austrian-born composer and conductor." International politics aside, would this not be appropriate also for Sergei Rachmaninoff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.157.255 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus to leave it as it is. According to Grove, Rachmaninoff never acclimated well to America and did not like living in the United States. He did so because of the political necessity and the economic and professional advantages the United States offered, but worked hard at maintaining as much of a Russian atmosphere in his own life (ie maintaining Russian customs, associating with friends who were Russian in USA, etc) as much as possible. One gets the sense from his biographers that he would have much preferred staying in Russia if circumstances had allowed it. I don't think there is any indication that he assumed an American identity in his own mind.4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is true of so many immigrants to America, but once they become citizens we embrace them (or should embrace them) as fellow Americans.If we were speaking of Rafael Méndez it would be considered racist to deny that he was an American. In fact stories of these great musicians, Korngold, Méndez, and Rachmaninoff, is the story or America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.157.255 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This "consensus" is hilarious. On wikipedia we use facts as the main factor, not sentiment. He had American citizenship therefore he was American. End of discussion. --85.167.53.207 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Where is his infobox?

Why doesn't Rachmaninoff have an infobox? Is this not the standard for notable people, especially for a composer as notable as him? And by infobox, I mean something with more than just a photo and his signature.

Please see this archived discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sergei_Rachmaninoff/Archive_2#Infobox?MisterCSharp (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Useless infobox

@Intforce: as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox is to summarize from the beginning the key aspects of the [person] the article treats. Now, since the information we cannot deduce from the lead has already been removed, why not removing the template altogether, as it displays nothing that cannot be achieved without an infobox? (Also, it has a title on the top from which one would expect some information inside it.) Tagging Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) too. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 14:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether we have a) an infobox with image and signature (as it is on this article), b) an image with the signature inside the caption (such as on Frédéric Chopin), or c) two separate images, is entirely a technical question. Personally, I heavily dislike Option B as I consider it an unsightly, illogical hijacking of an image's caption unrelated to the image itself. And Option C simply takes up more space than Option A, in addition to being far more ugly (in my opinion). Of course, one might propose simply adding more fields to the infobox, but perhaps it would be better not to open up that discussion – if you are unaware, discussions on infoboxes on WP:CM articles are akin to nuclear war. intforce (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Intforce: gosh, I had no idea it was such a big deal within the project XD – I just happened here while cleaning up some IPA transcriptions and went a little further from my original intent. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 15:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Dave12121212 added an infobox, but removed it after seeing this thread. I restored it because there is some content in the box which isn't from the lead such as the names of his parents, a link to his list of compositions and the place of his birth and death. An info box is meant to summarize content found elsewhere in the article, so I find the criticism that it is redundant or achieving what can be done elsewhere in the article a bit strange. I think the article looks more visually appealing with the info box, and provides a more standard format for this article with the majority of biographical entries within wikipedia. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Rachmanianof" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rachmanianof. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 8#Rachmanianof until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Wretchskull (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Rachmanianoff" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rachmanianoff. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 9#Rachmanianoff until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Wretchskull (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Useful source?

I found this reference with useful information about Rachmaninoff's handwriting as a result of piano, and more importantly, about his hand span across the keyboard ("fourteen keys"). Not entirely sure if it is reliable but it may be worthy of inclusion. Any thoughts? Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Date of the premiere of his Trio elegiaque no. 1

I was going to have this in my edit summary, but it got a bit long.

The article says he premiered his Trio elegiaque No. 1 in February 1892. Every source I have looked at though says 30th January. I have changed it.

See:

• Norris, pp. 11-12.
• Scott, p. 34.
• Bertensson & Leyda, p. 41.

— Dave12121212 [talk] 00:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Schlözer Etude

The thing about the Etude attributed to Paul de Schlözer seems a bit trivial to me, I'm not really sure it needs to be there. Checking through a couple of R's biographies, I can't seem to find it mentioned anywhere, so I'm not sure it needs to be here. — Dave12121212 [talk] 23:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, sorry, it's just been removed, thanks for that. — Dave12121212 [talk] 23:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, it is definitely a hard etude though! Aza24 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)