Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff/Archive 1

message: An anon just changed the "Rachmaninov"s in this article to "Rachmaninoff"s, pointing to http://home.flash.net/~park29/rachspell.htm as justification.
Now, I don't care which way we spell it (neither is more correct than the other - they're both legitimate trasliterations and they're both commonly used), but the title of the article ought to be consistent with the spelling we use in the article itself. So, if I move this page to Sergei Rachmaninoff, will there be any complaints? Normally I'd just do it, but there's quite a few redirects pointing here, and it's going to be a bit of a hassle updating them all in the event of an edit war... --Camembert
: That site seems to make a good case. Google shows 245,000 hits for "Rachmaninoff" and 293,000 for "Rachmaninov", so although it seems a minority spelling it seems not to be so by that wide a margin. Anyone who feels strongly enough about changing it, however, IMO should do the work of fixing the redirects. -- Infrogmation 03:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Google shows more hits for "Sergei Rachmaninov" than it does for "Sergei Rachmaninoff". I suspect that this is a more accurate measure than just looking for the surname alone, which is obviously not unique to this person. --Rebroad 18:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep, that's what I was planning. If you want to do it, save me a job, that's great :) --Camembert
It seems no one has objected, so I will delete the "off" redirect and move the page here. Help in changing links to our new spelling appreciated. -- Infrogmation 23:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Only after he moved to the West and found that the original spelling was causing people to mis-pronounce his name. --Rebroad 18:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Transliteration is an exceedingly vexed, contentious and controversial topic.  Suffice to say there is ultimately no "right" or "wrong" transliteration from one language/alphabet into another, it's all a matter of convention and context.  But when it comes to transliteration of personal names, the individual concerned surely has rights that supersede those of mere linguists.   Whatever the reason, if "Rachmaninoff" really was his chosen spelling of his own name, I believe the world should respect that.  Like, if my name were Smith but I chose to spell it as Smyytthe, nobody has the right to "correct" it.  Another example: Wassily Kandinsky - his first name is obviously pronounced "Vasily" (as per the Russian), but the spelling is what he himself chose - so that's it.  Cheers JackofOz 22:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The majority of record companies spell it "Rachmaninov", and that's probably what most users will search for. - Eyeresist 07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome. Well, we do encourage newcomers to be bold in making improvements, but one effect is that when well intentioned boldness messes something up, it may wind up being reverted. Well, if you'd like to give a hand, check "what links here" and help change the link to "Rachmaninoff" after I move the article to that spelling. -- Infrogmation 23:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I made a redirect for you with the spelling "Rakhmaninow".  In order to do this, one needs to make a new page that has the code that makes the browser go to the "Sergei Rachmoninoff" page (or whatever page you're trying to redirect to).  Did you follow the directions on this page?  Feel free to ask questions if I am unclear.  Adso de Fimnu 22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Grove Dictionary of Music also said in the 1950s that his music sucked.  Fashions in transliteration will change, but one thing will always be the same:  Rachmaninoff chose to spell his name with an "off".  We should respect his decision.   It isn't up to Wikipedia to transliterate from the Russian: "Rachmaninoff" doesn't even need to be seen as a transliteration that Wikipedians choose to make from Russian, it's simply a report of the name that the composer used for the second half of his career when he lived in the US and Europe.  Even when he lived in Russia, his music was published (in French, the language of the Russian upper class of the time) as "Rachmaninoff", written in Roman characters not Cyrillic. Grover cleveland 08:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First let me say I am not trying to pick a fight. Second, I don't expect to see any progress made on the spelling of Rachmaninoff on account of my argument. You cannot overcome the tyranny of the majority on Wikipedia, no matter how valid your point is. I'm just belatedly putting my two cents in. A couple more remarks however, if you don't mind: The critics at Grove Dictionary have removed their collective heads from their asses since the 50's -- is there currently a more respected and comprehensive single source of information for classical music? I believe all Russian names ending in -ov used to be spelled -off, accounting for the reason Rachmaninov used it. Do we even know whether he had a preference or was just following a trend which is now considered archaic?   The point about the influence of French is very appropriate. It is my perception that Russian names experience a form of "linguistic colonialism", often appearing in the form of the language of the enlightened Western European country that first tamed the crude Slavic beast. I think the -off spelling is a vestige of this phenomenon. I don't like "Scriabin", "Moussorgsky", or "Diaghilev" (all Gallicized, if I am not mistaken) for the same reason. I think it is chauvinistic to maintain them. These names should be able to stand alone in their unadulterated (Anglo-)Slavic forms of "Skryabin", "Musorgsky" (Musorgskiy is even better), and Dyagilev (pronounced "Dyagileff"). I think ignorance, tradition, and inertia are responsible for the continued misspelling of many Russian names. Anyway, stepping off the soapbox, the French have evolved in one respect -- they now spell it Rachmaninov (at least on Wikipedia). If Rakhmaninov were alive, I believe he would just be happy that people still listen to his music, and care enough about his name to spell it in a manner more respectful of his Russian roots. Just my opinion... 
Ivan Velikii 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the "off" spelling comes from French, which as we know was the second language of the Russian pre-Revolutionary aristocracy.  Another good example of a French-influenced spelling is Tchaikovsky.  A lot of music dictionaries today prefer to spell his name as Chaykovsky or something similar, which makes it very hard to look things up alphabetically...  I don't see why use of the French-influenced spellings should be seen as "linguistic colonialism".  English spelling is replete with words that are just spelt the way they are because of some random historical reason.  For example, if you have ever been to England as a tourist, you may have noticed the strange spellings and pronunciations of many English cities, such as Worcester, Leicester, Norwich, etc.  The spellings don't reflect the way the names of these cities are pronounced today, but rather the way they were pronounced many centuries ago.  This all makes English a very difficult language to learn as a non-native speaker, but it's also part of the language's richness.  The fact that many Russian names were introduced into English via French is just another of those historical facts... My two cents.  Grover cleveland 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My goodness! I would not have expected to see such a fierce debate as to the transliteration of a composer's name; nevertheless, I think I have to agree with what seems to be the majority opinion here, namely the "-off" spelling. As someone else kindly pointed out, this is the way the composer ultimately chose to spell his name. Regardless of how the record companies, linguists, etc. spell it, I think Rachmaninoff himself is the only authority on the matter that really counts: after all, it is his name. I think we really do have to go with what he himself chose and what we currently have.  --Todeswalzer|Talk 18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi there AJ.  Sorry -- your arguments in favor of "Rachmaninov" are incoherent.  The "standard" transliteration you endorse would result in "RaKhmaninov" which is indeed used by Grove (it would seem strange that Grove doesn't figure in your mysterious list of "all respectable sources"!).  However, Wikipedia's own policy (which you mention but don't seem to have read) says that a conventional name, where available, should be preferred to a transliteration.  Rachmaninoff, who spent the last twenty-six years of his life living and making his career in the US and Europe, had ample time to establish his own convention, which he did by consistently using the "Rachmaninoff" spelling.   It's even on his gravestone (which conspicuously lacks any Cyrillic characters)  .  What reasons he had for this choice are beside the point:  it was his choice and we should respect it.  As for the inconsistency with Lermontov etc., English spelling is rife with inconsistency (as I've pointed out earlier in this thread).  None of those other Russians spent as much time in the West as Rachmaninoff did, and thus (with the possible exception of Prokofiev) they did not have a chance to establish their own preference for transliteration.  As you yourself admit, strict adherence to standard transliteration principles would result in something like "Chaikovskii" rather than "Tchaikovsky" -- but I don't see you (or anyone) arguing with the same degree of vehemence on that article's talk page -- I wonder why?   Grover cleveland 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough. And you're right - though I have read the policy, I perhaps hadn't read it as attentively as I might have done. Nevertheless, I still think it's weird to ignore what's clearly the spelling used in the majority of cases. But I guess I'll have to overcome my emotions and move on with my life, somehow. And damn, the man could write a tune. Ajcounter 23:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transliteration of Name

message: How should his name be written in Cyrillic? Guaka 13:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Name in Cyrillic

message: It would be good if we could seperate the Biography passage into smaller sections such as "Childhood" "Teenage" you name it. This would make the article more appealing to read than just a big hunk of text. Dont you think? - Faerun
I don't think that there's much difference between the two, but do you have enough specific information about both to warrant separating it? --OFX 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: Discuss whether this site should be added as an external link Rachmaninov MP3 download audio MP3 files of his major works for free.
Thank you for modifying every post I make, I am not asking for only YOUR opinion, which is why I posted this in discussion. You are wrong becuase audio is working just fine. You also say that classical MP3's should be searched on google, not WP, yet what is this link:
* audio mp3 | video wmv Cavatina of Aleko performed by Muslim Magomaev.
Maybe we should remove all links pointing to free audio mp3's? Evidently you can't have it both ways. 
: No, Wikipedia is not a link dump or a place off which you can score resellers' commission.  You have spammed a number of other composers' articles with links to this site, which merely serves as a link factory to amazon and sheetmusic sellers.  The MP3s aren't even on the site; they also just link to one or two external sites.  And the biographies just seem like copies of wikipedia content.  It adds absolutely no value in my opinion, and those in search of classical MP3s can use google if they really want to find music. Dewet 15:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me Mr. Dewet, but have you really tried the page out? The reason I ask is because NOTHING of what you said is true! The page is actually quite stunning. You can listen to a vast amount of classical piano music online. Rachmaninov, Fauré, Ravel etc. There are NO pop ups as you say. Right now I'm listening to Rachmaninov's Prelude in G major. The sound quality is surprisingly good. I can't understand what the fuzz is all about. Doesn't wikipedia want to expand the amount of free-source information on the web? If someone reading about Rachmaninov has the chance to actually HEAR some of his music, wouldn't that be the perfect dictionary? Check it out, and reconsider. We do not live in the Dark Ages anymore. Time to step out of the box. Regards - Rich
I think that that last post by Rich was unnecessarily hostile and almost personal attack on Dewet. Dewet makes some valid points. Wikipedia was created to "expand the amount of free-source information..(at least to my understanding)" but although relevant, links to clips of Rachmaninoff's music does not necessarily contribute to the article as a whole. I think they would do better here. --OFX 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pianoparadise.com 

message: When did he become an American citizen?  JackofOz 01:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody know the answer to this?  I'm looking for a date if possible.  JackofOz 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A web search on "Rachmaninoff becomes us citizen" turned up this link: ., which gives the year as 1943 (no date though).  Here is another link which puts his citizenship at "five months before his death", which would make it in late 1942.  So I guess that narrows it down to late 1942/early 1943.  Google is often faster than asking people on talk pages :) Grover cleveland 15:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed it is.  The only reasonable explanation is that I googled, unsuccessfully, before I posted the question.  Thanks for narrowing the search down anyway.  JackofOz 13:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  February 1, 1943, as written in wife's recollections   Goudzovski 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ha!  Thank you so much. 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Citizenship 

message: From the introduction:
:While his reputation as composer only came later in life, Rachmaninoff's skill as pianist was well-known and highly respected; he often performed his own works as soloist.
I am pretty sure that this is backwards.  Rachmaninoff only started to play piano full-time after he emigrated to the U.S.  In Russia he was known mainly as a composer and conductor.  I don't have time to look for references now but when I do I'll correct this.  
Grover cleveland 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation as a pianist vs. composer 

message: The Guinness Book of Records (1986 edition) says he had the greatest recorded span, which covered 12 white notes and he could play a left hand chord of C, E flat, G, C, G.  This does not seem to appear in later editions. JackofOz 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone explain what is meant by "His large handspan roughly corresponded with his height"? I'm 6'4" and my span is 10". 213.83.125.109 12:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hand span

message: According to this entry, he became an American citizen only a month before his death. That's why I think that we shouldn't insist in his "American condition". User:Mistico
:So what?  He was a composer and he was an American citizen.  What's more, he lived in the US for half his professional career.  I'm putting it back. Grover cleveland 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mistico. This entry is the only place I have seen Rachmaninoff referred to as an American composer. He was trained in Russia, in the Russian tradition, and always wrote recognizably Russian music. The vast majority of his opus numbers were composed before his emigration to the USA. Likewise, I do not think of Stravinsky and Bartok as American composers, even though both men ended their days in the USA and composed major works there. That he delayed his naturalization as long as he did suggests that he hoped a change in political regime would enable him to return to Russia. 202.36.179.65 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Stravinsky is also categorized as an American composer, as is Schoenberg (who also became an American citizen).  Vladimir Horowitz is categorized as an American pianist as well.  When someone takes the decision to naturalize (which in the US, for what it's worth, has always entailed a renunciation of any prior citizenship), I think it's quite reasonable to take them at their word.  In addition, categories are meant to be inclusive:  see WP:CAT.  Categorizing Rachmaninoff as American doesn't prevent him from being classified as Russian as well. Grover cleveland 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Composer

message: I honestly don’t know where else to ask, so… is the theme music on the Daily Source Code a remix of something by Rachmaninoff? It plays at the beginning and end of most episodes, accompanied by some guy saying “The power of pure intellect.” —Frungi 20:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name That Tune

message: I was confused by this: "Rachmaninoff ended some of his major works musically with a rhythmic pattern - a long, two shorts and a long (as in the endings of the Second and Third Piano Concertos) or three shorts and a long (as in the ending of the Second Symphony), which is sometimes thought to relate to the prononunciation of his surname (RACH-man-in-OFF)." My impression was that all Russian words, including names, have a single stressed syllable, and that in the case of Rach., it's the second. Who has suggested that this might be the significance of the recurrent rhythmic idea? Ajcounter 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just tried to pronounce R's name in a way that sounds a little like the last four notes of Piano Concerto No.2 and I'm now well and truly convinced of two things. First, that's not how you say the name (it's ridiculous); and second, even if that were how the name was pronounced, the 'pom-pa-pa-pom' ending is so totally banal that it would be impossible to link it with a particular composer's signature. I'm getting rid of it. Ajcounter 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "RACH-man-in-OFF" 

message: :He also wanted to record his second symphony; instead Ormandy recorded it in an abridged version that was used for many years. (Ormandy finally recorded the uncut second symphony in 1973 for RCA Victor.)
I've never heard this story before.  The reference must be to the 1934 Ormandy Minneapolis Symphony recording of the Second Symphony.  Is there any evidence that this recording was a "substitute" for a recording by Rachmaninoff himself?  The claim that "an abridged version ... was used for many years" itself is misleading because there were many different versions (all heavily cut) used in early recordings of this symphony: different recordings tended to use different combinations of cuts.  I'm deleting the reference to Ormandy for these reasons. Grover cleveland 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This story seems less and less plausible the more I think about it.  In 1934 Ormandy was still near the beginning of his career and the Minneapolis Symphony was perceived as a provincial band.  There is no conceivable reason why RCA would have chosen to record the symphony with Ormandy in Minneapolis instead of Rachmaninoff in Philadelphia.  Grover cleveland 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are of course correct.  However I think Brunswick was a separate label from RCA, so they would have a motivation to make their own recording with Ormandy.  Incidentally I just realized that this was Ormandy's first ever symphonic recording! Grover cleveland 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recording the second symphony

message: It would be a good idea to make arrangements to return Rachmaninoff's remains to Russia. Perhaps someone with some kind of influence reading this, can get the ball rolling. Dr. Dan 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  His grandson Alexandre Rachmaninoff lives in Switzerland and France.  As far as I'm aware none of his family still lives in Russia.  Did he express a wish to have his remains interred there? Grover cleveland 07:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously Rachmaninoff's wishes and those of his family, would supercede our opinions, Grover, however I think there is enough evidence to pursue the question. There are many examples of posthumous returns of great national figures, who died abroad and in exile. Rachmaninoff fits the bill. Dr. Dan 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this isn't what Wikipedia is all about.  We're not some sort of advocacy service.  Our influence comes from the high quality of the articles we write, which often contain material that is not generally known to the public.   What our readers do with that information is a matter for them.   If there were some external campaign to repatriate Rachmaninoff's remains, and there was a citable record of that campaign, we could include reference to it in his article.  But we cannot initiate such campaigns, or even be a party to them.  We simply record and chronicle the works of others - that is our work.  --  JackofOz 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Return to Russia

message: 82.224.171.165 has just added a new resource to the list of links at the bottom of the article.  I had a quick look and the first thing I noticed was his birth date is shown as "2 April 1873".  This is incorrect.  By the old calendar he was born on 20 March 1873, which translates to 1 April 1873 in the new calendar, because there was a 12-day gap in the 19th century (or to be more precise, between 1 March 1800 and 28 February 1900).  From 1 March 1900 the gap increased to 13 days, but this is irrelevant because Rachmaninoff was born in 1873.  --  JackofOz 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New French link

message: Can someone give me a source or explanation on what the effects of Tchakovsky's death- with some sort of reference (I don't care about online citations, but something to direct me towards an observable change in his musicality)?
--Alegoo92 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the most immediate impact on Tchaikovsky's musicality was that it ended, permanently.  But since this is posted on the Rachmaninoff talk page, I guess you're talking about the effect of Tchaikovsky's death on Rachmaninoff's music.  I can't say I've ever read anything about this.  Rach was a great admirer of Tchaikovsky, but I can't see how his death per se would have changed his influence on Rachmaninoff's music.  He was influenced by the music of Tchaikovsky - which was unchanged by his death - not by Tchaikovsky personally.  But it's an interesting question all the same. --  JackofOz 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tchaikovsky's death 

message: :Image:RachmaninoffOrmandy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RachmaninoffOrmandy.jpg

message: Substituted at 15:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I recommend somebody nominate this for featured status, it's a pretty good article.--Cloak' 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: Well as my understanding of Russian naming conventions goes, Rachmaninov is the son of Rachman or Rachmani. Rachman isn't a Russian name, is it? And if it's son of Rachmani, then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the last name of his ancestor was Rachmani. Is Rachman the same as the Persian Rahman, or just a homonym?
::Not that simple. Rachmaninoff is a descendant of an old Moldavian 'Gospodars' (Princes) family, which roots are in XIV century. One of his direct ancestors was called Rachmanin. Semimartingale (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry/Last name? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sergei Rachmaninoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121202400/http://www.netmagic.net/~sapiens/rach/bio.html to http://www.netmagic.net/~sapiens/rach/bio.html
*Added  tag to http://www.naxosdirect.com/title/8.550348
*Added  tag to http://icls.fimc.net/hearhere/article.asp?id=908031
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * In the 2009-2010 school year, Decatur Central's Marching Band had a show, based around Sergei Rachmaninoff's Symphony no. 2. The show was entitled "Escape".
* Rachmaninoff owned two New York Steinways D-274 in his Beverly Hills home on Elm Drive, he also owned a New York D in his New York home, however, in 1933, he chose a Hamburg D for his new home, villa Senar, in Switzerland. 
* According to the son of aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky, Rachmaninoff met Sikorsky in 1923, and after studying his designs, handed him a check for $5,000 (roughly $61,000 in 2007 dollars), saying "I believe in you, I trust you, pay me back when you can, go, start building your airplanes."
* Rachmaninoff once accompanied the gypsy singer Nadezhda Plevitskaya. Their 1926 recordings of "Powder and Paint" and "The Little Apple" were not released for decades.
* The melody and chord structure for the popular power ballad All By Myself  borrows heavily from his Piano Concerto No. 2 in C Minor. Eric Carmen recorded All By Myself in 1975.
* The tune of "Never Gonna Fall In Love Again," also released by Eric Carmen, is based on the main theme of the adagio, played on solo clarinet, of the third movement of Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony in E Minor.
* The melody of "Full Moon and Empty Arms", a popular song from 1945, is a theme from the last movement of his Piano Concerto No. 2.
* Rachmaninoff is an important influence on Matt Bellamy of Muse, as illustrated in songs such as "Space Dementia," "Megalomania,", "Butterflies and Hurricanes." and "Hoodoo".
*In 1965, Robert Wright and George Forrest, the authors of the musical Kismet based on the music of Borodin, wrote a musical called Anya, with melodies by Rachmaninoff.
* The eighteenth variation from his Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini appears in the soundtrack of the following films:
**	(1953) The Story of Three Loves
**	(1954) Rhapsody
**	(1980) Somewhere in Time
**	(1991) Dead Again
**	(1993) Groundhog Day
**	(1995) Sabrina
**	(1998) Ronin
Rachmaninoff was aware of the appeal of this melody, reportedly saying of it "This one is for my agent." 
*His Piano Concerto No. 3 in D Minor plays a central role in the 1996 film Shine about the life of pianist David Helfgott.
* His Piano Concerto No. 2, played by Eileen Joyce, features prominently on the soundtrack of the 1945 film Brief Encounter.
* His Piano Concerto No. 2 is mentioned in the 1959 film The Seven Year Itch.
* His Piano Concerto No. 2 was also featured in the anime Nodame Cantabile, with the piano solo played by Shinichi Chiaki, and the orchestra conducted by Franz von Stresemann.
* Movements II and III of his Piano Concerto No. 2 are featured in the film Center Stage.
*In Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, when Willy Wonka plays the piano lock to enter the chocolate room, Mrs. Teevee announces that he is playing Rachmaninoff, when in fact he is playing the intro to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Overture to The Marriage of Figaro.
*In Spider-Man 3 it is used as background music when Mary Jane is going to visit Harry Osborn.
*In the Marx Brothers' movie A Day at the Races, Harpo starts playing the C-sharp minor Prelude and literally destroys the piano in the process. 
* The German-made Rachmaninoff vodka is named after the composer.
*Keith Emerson from progressive rock band Emerson, Lake & Palmer "Played" Prelude in C minor in a flying piano, after their famous California Jam Concert.
*A comparison of the creative trajectories of Rachmaninov and Scriabin has fueled psychoanalytic speculation on the distinction between talent and genius.E.E. Garcia (2004): Rachmaninoff and Scriabin: Creativity and Suffering in Talent and Genius.  Psychoanalytic Review, 91: 423–42.
----
Removed until an idea of what to do with it comes forth. I'm integrating the film portrayals and perhaps some mentions, but I don't know what to do with the rest. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles ALTON .ıl 09:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: why does the brass sound so off on the recording of piano concerto number 2?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.7.130 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many things are off. However, we are fortunate that we have any recording of the piece since it is a huge endeavor, and if I was ever able to play it I would surely not license it as freely as Wikipedia requires. ALTON .ıl 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: a question

message: According to this BBC article , "Rachmaninov was thought to be double jointed". Does anyone have any other sources that back that claim (or specifically mention experts' theories, even if not 100% proven)? If so, it would be an interesting piece of info to add. DuckMaestro  —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  double-jointed? 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of the Composers project review of B-class articles.  My review is on the comment page.  If you have questions or comments, feel free to respond there, here, or on my talk page.  I think this article qualifies for A-class.  Magic♪piano 16:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Composer project review

message: We provide a quote about Rubinstein and say it could easily be mistaken for a Rachmaninoff review.  I don't like this approach at all.  
* Firstly, who says it could "easily be mistaken"? That might be the case taken out of context, but if read in its original context, it would be clear that it's Rubinstein the writer's writing about. 
* Secondly, it's only one person's opinion that these words might apply also to Rachmaninoff, which brings it into the area of OR.  Why not find a quote actually about Rachmaninoff, rather than making an unrelated quote do work it was never meant to do.  
* Thirdly, if the words do apply to Rachmaninoff, then ipso facto they could not apply to Rubinstein, because it starts out "No artist has ever shown to his audiences so merciless a front", which excludes all of Rachmaninoff's predecessors, including Rubinstein.  
* Fourthly, I can make no sense of "At first sight one is conscious stern".  
* Fifthly, it gives a one-sided impression of his character.  He was not as uncompromising as we would have our readers believe, as this quote from the liner notes (written by R. D. Darrell) to my VOX set of Michael Ponti's complete Rachmaninoff piano music attests:
::The composer himself was more down to earth (revealing the vein of dry humour familiar to his close friends but unsuspected by the public) in a letter to Medtner, 21 December 1931: "I've played the Corelli Variations about fifteen times, but of these fifteen performances only one was good.  The others were sloppy. I can't play my own compositions! And it's so boring! Not once have I played these all in continuity.  I was guided by the coughing of the audience.  Whenever the coughing would increase, I would skip the next variation.  Whenever there was no coughing, I would play them in the proper order.  In one concert, I don't remember where - some small town - the coughing was so violent that I played only ten variations (out of 20).  My best record was set in New York, where I played 18 variations. However, I hope that you will play all of them, and won't 'cough'".  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualms about the quote in Presence

message: The question above actually brings to light a major problem with having separate articles, both appearing to give the main points of the subject's life.  Who gets to decide whether a particular piece of new information is important enough for Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff, but not important enough for Sergei Rachmaninoff?  It would baffle me.  There was a discussion (above) about keeping these articles separate, but there was never one about creating the Life article in the first place.  Since then, this page has received far more traffic than the Life article has: the Life article has had only 1 (yes, 1) edit in 2009 and only 6 in total, ever, not counting its creation, whereas this one has had a couple of hundred in 2009 alone, and probably some thousands all up.  
But how can this be?  Surely, if the Life article is meant to be far more detailed than this one, then most new information would be going there and most of the editorial attention would be focussed there.  Some information would go in both articles.  But very little would be going in this article alone.  Yet, the opposite is the case.  
It seems to me that having these separate articles is not working, and has never really worked.  The Life article was said to be a "work in progress", but even the creator seems to have given up on it.  
I propose that they be merged into one article once more.  No information would be lost; but it would all be in the one place, the place that most editors are expecting to find it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how WP works. See WP:SUMMARY. If there's enough for a new article (and I'm not saying there is in this case), then it's fine to have both. Of course, given how it is NOW, it's bad -- the main article has too much to be also split off -- but it's not an inherently bad thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge it. Yes Binksternet, ideally it would've been worked on within this article, but the detail I was going for was that of the first three paragraphs in Life which are not "mostly redundant" (his siblings aren't mentioned at all in this main page, nothing about his grandmother, who both first exposed him to liturgical music and was one of the sources of his famous laziness, Zverev and his relationship with Sergei, which is so instrumental to his development, is also barely brushed over, and so on); further, no one decides what is more important, but I know that on the other side the level of detail in those first paragraphs would be certainly scrubbed out of this main page as fluff. But I guess that ambition goes beyond esoteric even for Wiki. ALTON .ıl 11:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then move the relevant information to Sergei Rachmaninoff childhood and Sergei Rachmaninoff early career or similar. My biggest problem with the detail presented at the Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff page is that it announces itself as "Life of" rather than singling out a subdivision of his life, appropriate to a split from the main article. I think that any biography article implies "Life of" in front of the name of the person, and that no article should be entitled "Life of X" when X suffices. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After no response here and considerable thought, I have moved the Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff page to Youth of Sergei Rachmaninoff. The youth section was the one most prominently augmented by Alton, and the word "life" misdirected the reader from this article here, entitled simply Sergei Rachmaninoff. As well, I trimmed off all the non-youth parts of the newly moved article, in keeping with its new name. Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that has had the effect of certain post-youth information just disappearing off into the bottomless pit of oblivion.  Such as the fact of, and precise date of, his becoming a US citizen (1 Feb 1943), which was mentioned there and is not here.  And various other things too, I'll bet.  Someone needs to do a merge of the excised material with this article, and quickly.  Those who did the fiddling with the original set up have responsibility for ensuring that information is not lost, and to fix such problems if and when they do occur.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Jack, but I'll be surprised if those "various other things" that were added to the biographical article persist on this page. ALTON .ıl 04:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've now had a good close look at the movements of text, and have substantially restored most of what went missing.  Some of it's now in the main article, some in the Youth article.  Now we can move on. --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  09:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate articles?  Merge redux

message: I would do it, but I don't know how.
It was labeled something like "the Liszt transcription of Chopin's "The Maiden's Wish" ".
Since it didn't start like like the score, I thought it was mislabeled.
I would label it as
An excerpt from last part (starting at Variant II) of Liszt S.480 - Chants polonais #1 based on Chopin's Op.74-1 - The Maiden's Wish  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giles1939 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please reinstate the audio of Rachmaninoff playing List S.480 

message: Anyone who thinks that messy opening had impact and was a service to readers, I ask to consider the advantages of my edit. Instead of wading through the extraordinary level of detail, much of it inappropriate in a summary, to get to the second item in the grammatical sentence ("was"), I have removed both New and Old Style birth-dates down to where you'd expect them to be, at the start of "Life", the opening section. The date of death is still at the end of the bio section, where it's useful. I've relocated the cyrillic script into the footnotes (very very few English-speakers can read cyrillic script, and it's still there for the vanishingly small number of readers who might want to verify, in the footnote). Tony (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything looks good to me except taking the exact dates out.  I don't know how this comes across to others, but to me it's a jolt; all comprehensive reference works I know include them.  Not putting them there implies we don't know them.  All the OS stuff can go in a footnote. Antandrus  (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting the OS stuff in a footnote would be an improvement, but the full complement of numerals makes it hard to pick up the year-range of his life, which is critical in historical and cultural terms. The fact that he was born on 1 April is not critical right at the top, and IMO belongs in the section that announces his birth, along with its location. Tony (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unholy clutter at the top 

message: I am a huge fan of Rachmaninoff and eat up compliments directed at him. But to me this article has too many personal, diary-esque reflections that do not seem in place in an encyclopedia. If you want to wax lyrical about his life and work, write a book. But here is not the place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.95.152 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples would be good, but positive opinions aren't a bad thing, so long as they contribute to the nuetral point of view policy. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. Personal subjective opinions should at least always be attributed to the source, or removed. Offliner (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I put a tag for this. While I would mostly agree to it myself, the style doesn't quite feel right for a Wikipedia article. For example "He was famed for possessing a flawless, clean and inhuman virtuoso piano technique" or "From those barely moving fingers came an unforced, bronzelike sonority and an accuracy bordering on infallibility". If we could quote someone as having said that, it would be ok I guess, but claiming someone had "inhuman" or "infallible" qualities is just a little bit over the top :) --Allefant (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree.  I greatly admire the man but his reputation and technique should be pared down to a single paragraph - readers could then investigate the sources to get a deeper critical feeling that has been writter about him.  The way that section reads it would appear Rachmaninoff never had an off-day in performance and could summon the Muses at his command.  It's written far too much like a fan's eulogy.  HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much opinion? 

message: Does anyone mind if my featured picture of Rachmaninoff is used in the article somewhere? Perhaps someone could write a caption for it. Etincelles (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great photo! It would work well in the article. Can you Photoshop a replacement button onto his vest? Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I could, but I think it would misrepresent the historical source. Etincelles (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Picture

message: Is somebody trying to promote a movie or book?  This article is on Rachmaninoff and not V. Horowitz isn't it?  I've never seen a Wiki page on an artist feature so much content on another artist (unless they were married). Even though below it states it was trimmed!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by StyleIcons (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the trimming.  It never occurred to me until I read the reference, but on reflection I couldn't remember ever hearing Horowitz play the Rach 2, only the Rach 3.  And now I know why.  But such a recording would go on my "List of Recordings that Should Have Been Made but Weren't", along with Horowitz's version of the Wanderer Fantasy.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  09:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I did a little trimming, removing some purple prose, adding a few details.  You can also be bold and do the trimming yourself.THD3 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Friendship with [[Vladimir Horowitz]]

message: This statement:
Rachmaninoff made his first tour of the United States as a pianist in 1909, an event for which he composed the Piano Concerto No. 3 (Op. 30, 1909) as a calling card. This successful tour made him a popular figure in America. Nevertheless, he loathed the tour and declined offers of future American concerts.[21]
is misleading, given the following sections about R. living in the U.S. and concertizing extensively. Citation is to Grove -- is that what they really say? Should be some qualification given about when he changed his mind. 
(Is this something I should check out and edit, or leave to original author? Not sure of protocol here.)
Dwythe (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I amended the passage to clear up this point. Jonyungk (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading statement about American concerts after 1909 

message: I'd like a link to the Rachmaninoff Performance Diary, hosted by the Rachmaninoff Society, to be included on the Rachmaninoff page. The URL is: http://www.rachmaninoff.org/rachdiary/index_embed.php
Bulfinchmyth (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be redundant, as the main site is already linked. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Rachmaninoff Performance Diary