Back-to-back, exhausting concerts would regularly empty thehis psyche, and to preserve it, onhe had to be a person of an adamant, uncompromising mentality. Back-to-back, exhausting concerts would regularly empty his psyche, and to preserve it, he had to be a person of an adamant, uncompromising mentality.

Because you are already discussing Rachmaninoff, it feels impersonal (and needlessly indirect) to pull our vantage point back further to this level of general statement. Doing this repeatedly lends a level of grandiosity to the prose that you may not have intended.

Theis man of strong character, which was forged in the crucible of depression, ennobled by faith in God, and reinforced after the bereavement of Russia, died more than eighty years ago. This man of strong character, which was forged in the crucible of depression, ennobled by faith in God, and reinforced after the bereavement of Russia, died more than eighty years ago.

Change made for the same reason as above. The more you distance yourself from the person, the more the writing elevates him to a mythical level, especially when used in concert with the effusive praise.

THe knew this is whatall we needed to find out what our lives actually are. He knew this is all we needed to find out what our lives actually are.

The sudden switch to this statement "This is what we need..." has impact, and it sounds like it may be a thesis statement of the essay, but so far as a reader, the statement needs more support to be convincing because it is a strong claim to make. So, I altered it again to be from Rachmaninoff's perspective, as for now that is the focus of the essay and I believe it more closely follows, both logically and rhetorically. I included "we needed" instead of "he needed", as I am receiving the message that you believe that this great composer was possessed of this idea of the meaning of our lives. I hope that was your intention.