# Favourite Rachmaninov Piano Concerto



## maestro267

So, which is it to be?


----------



## Taneyev

To me, the third, no doubt. A fantastic work. I love it.


----------



## maestro267

Dude, you were quick!

I voted for No. 3 as well. I love all of 'em, but No. 3 tops it for me.


----------



## handlebar

Oh WHY did you have to have this poll!!??? I adore them ALL.
But the 4th especially.

These are the best piano concertos of the 20th century in my opinion.

Jim


----------



## maestro267

handlebar said:


> Oh WHY did you have to have this poll!!??? I adore them ALL.


Cos that's how I roll!


----------



## mueske

Not an easy decision, but it has to be number 2.


----------



## Scott Good

#2 all the way! the opening is one of my all time favorite musical moments. the main theme in the last movement is so gooooood.

btw, i once played all of these pieces (in the orchestra of course!), 2 nights, one pianist! it was a marathon.


----------



## Weston

I had to go with No. 2. When I was a kid one of the first LP records I got was of the No. 2. I couldn't tell you the performers, but I remember secretly loving the melody that became the pop song - what was it "Full moon and Open Arms" or something? I loved the lush string section playing that melody and actually wished the guy banging away on the piano in what sounded to me like unrelated arrhythmic repeated chord stutters would be quiet for the duration. 

Obviously I had some moment of turn around between then and now and this may have endeared the piece to me moreso than the others.


----------



## Mirror Image

I voted for the 2nd only by default, because I love them all, but I love the 2nd a whole lot.


----------



## World Violist

The 3rd is absolutely my favorite Rach concerto, one of my favorite piano concerti of any composer actually. It's just so dynamic, lush, intense. The opening is quite haunting; it just gets better from there.


----------



## Scott Good

The Rhapsody is such a fine work as well. With the big money tune!


----------



## Mirror Image

Looks like his 2nd is winning as I suspected it would.


----------



## cburkins

I suspect that one of the reasons I prefer 2 is that my rendition of 3 I have isn't very good, and the rendition I have of 2 is. Do people have a favorite version of Piano Cto #3?


----------



## Aramis

cburkins said:


> Do people have a favorite version of Piano Cto #3?


Argerich/Chailly.


----------



## mueske

cburkins said:


> I suspect that one of the reasons I prefer 2 is that my rendition of 3 I have isn't very good, and the rendition I have of 2 is. Do people have a favorite version of Piano Cto #3?


Horowitz for me (any version) - there is no other when it comes to Rachmaninoff's third piano concerto.


----------



## handlebar

Also, in addition to which is your favourite Concerto here, I would nominate the recordings of the concertos by Rachmaninov himself from the RCA set as THE best of any interpretation. The sound is rather good as well.

Jim


----------



## danae

I voted for the 2nd. I like the 3rd a lot, but there are parts with too much babbling where I just have to be patient until the passage comes to an end.


----------



## bdelykleon

danae said:


> I voted for the 2nd. I like the 3rd a lot, but there are parts with too much babbling where I just have to be patient until the passage comes to an end.


I'm not into Rachmaninov, all too uneven. BTW best thing I heard from Rachmaninov was the second concerto in "The seven years itch".


----------



## Conor71

Another vote for the third!.


----------



## Scott Good

bdelykleon said:


> I'm not into Rachmaninov, all too uneven. BTW best thing I heard from Rachmaninov was the second concerto in "The seven years itch".


"Here's the baby, Rachmaninov. Give her the full treatment."

Oh man, that was just great!


----------



## mueske

bdelykleon said:


> I'm not into Rachmaninov, all too uneven. BTW best thing I heard from Rachmaninov was the second concerto in "The seven years itch".


Care to elaborate on 'too uneven'?

Btw, that recording hardly does Rachmaninoff and the concerto justice, a little too fast!


----------



## bdelykleon

mueske said:


> Care to elaborate on 'too uneven'?
> 
> Btw, that recording hardly does Rachmaninoff and the concerto justice, a little too fast!


Rachmaninoff's concerti have great moments o lyricism, but also lots of bars without much interest and a sub-par orchestration, and also, like Tchaikovsky, he seems to struggle with the large form, in the case of Rachmaninoff, add the additional bars of virtuosistic mumbo jumbo. The preludes and some other solo pieces suit his style better, imho.

The recording of the movie isn't execpcional at all, the best playing of this concerto I ever heard was live with Nelson Freire a couple of years ago..


----------



## Mirror Image

mueske said:


> Care to elaborate on 'too uneven'?
> 
> Btw, that recording hardly does Rachmaninoff and the concerto justice, a little too fast!


Pay no attention to him, mueske. The Rachmaninov concerti are some of the hardest to perform and are far from mediocre pieces. Not many people can play them. This of course doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable. They're full of remarkable lyricism and anyone interested in the piano repertoire should definitely listen and relish in these works of beauty.


----------



## andruini

Definitely the third. I love the second and all, but everytime I hear the third there's just something that makes it haunt my mind for days..


----------



## Scott Good

bdelykleon said:


> Rachmaninoff's concerti have great moments o lyricism, but also lots of bars without much interest and a sub-par orchestration, and also, like Tchaikovsky, he seems to struggle with the large form, in the case of Rachmaninoff, add the additional bars of virtuosistic mumbo jumbo. .


You certainly are frank!

Humm..virtuosic mumbo jumbo. I actually think, but I'm exactly not sure why, that both Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov had a knack for incorporating virtuosity in their scores. More so than say Sibelius or Brahms. My absolute favorite for this is Shostakovitch.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Russian folk references and/or style of performing.

I would agree about the orchestration - simply simple. Effective enough, and easy to pull off, so I can't say it is bad, but not very deep. The 4th concerto is the most interesting in this regard, and there are a few quite striking orchestrations in the Rhapsody. But, orchestral colour wasn't really his strong suit.

But I'm such a sucker for those melodies and harmonies!


----------



## mueske

bdelykleon said:


> Rachmaninoff's concerti have great moments o lyricism, but also lots of bars without much interest and a sub-par orchestration, and also, like Tchaikovsky, he seems to struggle with the large form, in the case of Rachmaninoff, add the additional bars of virtuosistic mumbo jumbo. The preludes and some other solo pieces suit his style better, imho.
> 
> The recording of the movie isn't execpcional at all, the best playing of this concerto I ever heard was live with Nelson Freire a couple of years ago..


I'm of course heavily biased - but I don't hear these things. I never find them dull, nor do I believe the orchestration is sub par. It isn't the best orchestration, but it is never harsh or unbalanced, it does the trick. And again, please elaborate on 'struggle with the large form'.

Virtuosistic mumbo jumbo? It isn't Liszt... Seriously though, I believe Rachmaninoff does a great job at putting in virtuosic passages, it fits. I never feel like he wrote a bar just to show off how good he was at writing for the piano, it fits. The pieces are virtuosic, but (to me) they don't sound like it.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

mueske said:


> ...I believe Rachmaninoff does a great job at putting in virtuosic passages, it fits. I never feel like he wrote a bar just to show off how good he was at writing for the piano, it fits. The pieces are virtuosic, but (to me) they don't sound like it.


I think this is particularly true of pieces _other than_ the 3rd Piano Concerto... and yet...

The bravura passages of the 3rd Piano Concerto have such a propulsive energy that I'll vote for *that work* as my favorite among those listed.

It's possible that I've seen this work performed live more than any other classical piece. And Argerich's performance is one of my "desert island" CDs.


----------



## jhar26

-1 No.3 (especially if Martha is playing)
-2 No.2
-3 Rhapsody on the Paganini theme

The above three are great - the other two less so in my modest opinion, but still enjoyable enough for the occasional listen.


----------



## Somnifer

No. 2 (with Richter) then No. 3 (Horowitz 1978 or Janis or Volodos - best ever live recording) then No. 1 (Janis) then Rhapsody (haven't given much thought as to favourite performances) then No. 4. Never liked the fourth concerto.


----------



## chillowack

I absolutely love the beauty and romance of the Rhapsody, but #2 has always been my favorite Rachmaninoff concerto. It's a grand, sweeping saga from beginning to end, and the main "allegro scherzando" theme always reminds me of some vast and mysterious Arabian desertscape, something you might see/hear in a David Lean film, like _Dr. Zhivago_ or _Lawrence of Arabia_.


----------



## Aramis

After careful listening to No. 2 I have decided that it's my favourite. Amazing opening, no sleepy moments in slow movement (which are present in No. 3) - simply great. So is Rubinstein's interpretation.


----------



## Rachovsky

cburkins said:


> I suspect that one of the reasons I prefer 2 is that my rendition of 3 I have isn't very good, and the rendition I have of 2 is. Do people have a favorite version of Piano Cto #3?


Can I suggest the Levine/Volodos recording? I'm beginning to like it more than the Argerich/Chailly one. He does like the full ossia cadenza, whereas Horowitz didn't as he thought it detracted from the drama in the 3rd movement. Plus he doesn't fly through it like Ms. Argerich sadly does.

I voted for No. 3, but I do love every minute of the 2nd as well.


----------



## Rachmaninov

My favourite Rachmaninov's piano concerto is No. 2 in C minor.

What I love about his piano Concerto no.2 is that it has got a remarkable background. This music is actually written after Rachmaninov's recovery from depression due to the failure of his first symphony which he supposed to be successful. 

I think no.2 is the deepest and most emotional, love it!


----------



## Air

*Piano Concerto No. 3*

1. Rachmaninoff/Ormandy
2. Argerich/Chailly
3. Horowitz/Ormandy
4. Volodos/Levine

Those are my preferences anyways.


----------



## Ravellian

This is so hard... the Rach 2 is the more beautiful, especially the first few minutes of the first movement (I find the second movement rather boring though, for some reason). As a pianist, however, I have to go with Rach 3.


----------



## JAKE WYB

for me the 4th anyday - 2 &3 havent stood the test of timne after many listen wheas 4 has stayed fresh for me and is as sparkling and enjoyable more than ever - 2 i find sickly and especially the slow movement I find cloying and annoying the slow movememnt from one is much more of imagination and quality i feel - and three I find sometimes a litte turgid though i think thats because it needs a top notch rendition 

But 4 is bubbling and grapping from start to finish and has a cool and effortless brightness i find more uplifting


----------



## path

why nobody is voting for No.1? it might sound schumman,grieg... but still a great concerto.


----------



## JSK

This is a very tough decision for me to make, but I think I slightly prefer the 3rd to the 2nd.


----------



## Cortision

Sadly I havn't heard the fourth (!). It seems to be a lot harder to get hold of than the others, for some reason. Based on what JAKE WYB has said, I think I will make sure to track it down. I guess this makes me ineligable to vote, but I will express my opinion on what I have heard.

1. Fresh and filled with a sparkling effervescence, but perhaps not as emotionally involving as the others.

2. Beautiful! Although the first few hearings it seemed to me to lack some coherence, I eventually felt it to be brilliantly structured, the third movement especially. (I say this from a novice listener's point of view, not having the expertise of a musicologist).

3. Very intense and immensely satisfying. It's an amazing experience when a pianist really pulls this off.

Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini. Isn't this a different kettle of fish, being in the form of theme and variations? Anyhow, I love it, especially the famous fourteenth variation, even though it is rather sappy! A bit of sickly sweetness is okay in moderation, isn't it?


----------



## mueske

Cortision said:


> Sadly I havn't heard the fourth (!). It seems to be a lot harder to get hold of than the others, for some reason. Based on what JAKE WYB has said, I think I will make sure to track it down. I guess this makes me ineligable to vote, but I will express my opinion on what I have heard.
> 
> 1. Fresh and filled with a sparkling effervescence, but perhaps not as emotionally involving as the others.
> 
> 2. Beautiful! Although the first few hearings it seemed to me to lack some coherence, I eventually felt it to be brilliantly structured, the third movement especially. (I say this from a novice listener's point of view, not having the expertise of a musicologist).
> 
> 3. Very intense and immensely satisfying. It's an amazing experience when a pianist really pulls this off.
> 
> Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini. Isn't this a different kettle of fish, being in the form of theme and variations? Anyhow, I love it, especially the famous fourteenth variation, even though it is rather sappy! A bit of sickly sweetness is okay in moderation, isn't it?


I have a naxos CD, with piano concerto no. 1 - 4 and the rhapsody. The pianist is Idil Biret; the orchestra the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra and the conductor is Antoni Wit.

Not exactly really big names, but it's a fine interpretation, and it was very cheap!

Should you not find a recording, youtube has it, I just checked.


----------



## rachmaninof

I have more than 200 recordings of rach 3; crazy isn't it ?

For me the third is the best one of course ! weissenberg/pretre, 1968. RCA.


----------



## Pugg

rachmaninof said:


> I have more than 200 recordings of rach 3; crazy isn't it ?
> 
> For me the third is the best one of course ! weissenberg/pretre, 1968. RCA.


A bit, but then again if you are happy and do listen to them from time to time


----------



## Mal

Rachmaninov: Piano Concertos 1-4 Ashkenazy, Andre Previn conducting LSO, on Double Decca. Order of preference, from my favourite: 2, 3, 1,4


----------



## Strange Magic

I picked #3 because of the rules, but I love 2,3, and the Rhapsody almost equally. I have the ancient Mercury recordings with Byron Janis/Antal Dorati of 2 and 3, and also Rachmaninoff/Stokowski and Rachmaninoff/Ormandy for the same. Such wonderful music!


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Depends to some extent what mood I'm in, but overall I'd have to go for no.2, with no.3 as runner-up.


----------



## DavidA

bdelykleon said:


> Rachmaninoff's concerti have great moments o lyricism, but *also lots of bars without much interest and a sub-par orchestration, and also, like Tchaikovsky, he seems to struggle with the large form, in the case of Rachmaninoff, add the additional bars of virtuosistic mumbo jumbo*. The preludes and some other solo pieces suit his style better, imho.
> 
> The recording of the movie isn't execpcional at all, the best playing of this concerto I ever heard was live with Nelson Freire a couple of years ago..


Sorry, but are you listening to the same Rachmaninoff as I am? Frankly this statement is somewhat laughable.


----------



## DavidA

Rachovsky said:


> Can I suggest the Levine/Volodos recording? I'm beginning to like it more than the Argerich/Chailly one. He does like the full ossia cadenza, whereas Horowitz didn't as he thought it detracted from the drama in the 3rd movement. Plus he doesn't fly through it like Ms. Argerich sadly does.
> 
> I voted for No. 3, but I do love every minute of the 2nd as well.


I'd point out that Rachmaninoff himself plays the same cadenza as Argerich and Horowitz.


----------



## DavidA

I love them all. 

No question no 3 is my favourite, one of my favourite concertos.

Recordings suggested:

Horowitz / Barbirolli is incredible if you can take the wretched sound.
Argerich / Chailly is tremendously exciting, perhaps best all round
Van Cliburn / Kondrashin live with the big cadenza
Janis / Dorati also has very fine pianism.
And of course Rachmaninoff himself though the sound is dated.


----------



## Bohemian

Any thoughts on Valentina Lisitsa playing Rachmaninov ? Listening now to her interpretations and quite like what I am hearing


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

But does it matter? Meaning it's Rachmaninov! They are all great


----------



## MagneticGhost

Four marvellous works. I can't decide my favourite between 2&3.
3 is epic. But 2 is just so unbelievably romantic (in the modern sense)
I remember holding my first teenage girlfriend's hand in the back seat of the car on a journey with this playing loudly on the radio. It is still one of the most erotically charged moments of my life.


----------



## Pyotr

If you like Rachmaninoff, you'll like what the Philadelphia Orchestra is offering on an April weekend next year. Two piano concerti in one concert? I see on Friday and Saturday they have only one soloist. Ouch, my fingers hurt! 

Thursday, April 27, 2017
8:00 pm
Stéphane Denève - Conductor
Nikolai Lugansky - Piano
Haochen Zhang - Piano
-Rachmaninoff : Piano Concerto No. 4
INTERMISSION
-Rachmaninoff : Piano Concerto No. 2
----------------------------------------------
Friday, April 28, 2017
8:00 pm
Stéphane Denève - Conductor
Nikolai Lugansky - Piano
Rachmaninoff : Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, for piano and orchestra
INTERMISSION
Rachmaninoff : Piano Concerto No. 3
-----------------------------------------------
Saturday, April 29, 2017
8:00 pm
Stéphane Denève - Conductor
Haochen Zhang : Piano
Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No. 1
INTERMISSION
Rachmaninoff : Symphonic Dances
---------------------------------------------------------
https://www.philorch.org/concert/rachmaninoff-festival?date=2017-04-27_20-00#/

Oh, the 2nd for me.


----------



## calvinpv

The 3rd is my favorite as well with Yefim Bronfman as my preferred pianist. The original version of the 4th (there are not enough substantial changes to the revision for me to care for it) comes in a close second place. 

The two versions of the first concerto are so different from each other that one could argue Rachmaninov has five, not four, numbered piano concertos. The revision may be the more scintillating of the two and makes for a better work for the concert hall, but the original, while it may have fewer and more traditional textures, is definitely more lyrical and intimate.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

As I reflect on what I typed over half-a-dozen years ago, I would still say that 3 is my _personal_ favorite- the one I'm most likely to listen to when alone. However, let me add that I'd prefer 2 for a "date-night;" to listen to WITH someone. [/daydream]


----------



## Vinski

I'm very satisfied with Hough and Litton. All of them.


----------



## davidsannderson

Between the 2 and the 3? Whoa..... Wow. Choosing between two of the greatest high points of my life, with Rachmaninoff at the piano and incredible sound (despite hiss in the background- the Presence of the music is incredible...)? Whoa.

2 and 3. Both.


----------



## Pugg

davidsannderson said:


> Between the 2 and the 3? Whoa..... Wow. Choosing between two of the greatest high points of my life, with Rachmaninov at the piano and incredible sound (despite hiss in the background- the Presence of the music is incredible...)? Whoa.
> 
> 2 and 3. Both.


That's the spirit, good choice!:tiphat:


----------



## SixFootScowl

I can't decide, but a 2013 poll also heavily favored piano concertos 2 and 3:
Favorite Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto


----------



## Ras

I voted for the 2nd. 
I like the recording on DG by K. Zimerman with S. Ozawa conducting.


----------



## DavidA

Ras said:


> I voted for the 2nd.
> I like the recording on DG by K. Zimerman with S. Ozawa conducting - earlier *Zimerman recorded with Karajan*.


Not Zimerman with Karajan. Weissenberg is the pianist with HvK. As far as I know the only Rach Karajan recorded. Superb performance


----------



## Ras

DavidA said:


> Not Zimerman with Karajan. Weissenberg is the pianist with HvK. As far as I know the only Rach Karajan recorded. Superb performance


Thank you for the correction. I have edited my post. And next time I hear some Rachmaninov I will try the Weissenberg/Karajan you recommend.


----------



## Magico

I originally voted for #3 but I've come to love #2 more.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Probably the 3rd, for its depth and sustained intensity, but I really love the 4th and wish it were better known.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Surprised No. 2 is leading, but I guess No. 3 is a bit too long for some folks. No. 3 is probably my favorite piano concerto ever, but No. 2 is just a hair away from that honor as well. The slow movement of the 2nd is one of the first pieces of classical music that moved me to the core; I was downright stunned by its beauty. I came to like the 3rd later, but it's got everything - gorgeous tunes, big-time virtuosity, a smashing cadenza (in the original version), great interplay between soloist and orchestra, dreamy slow movement, and an ending that's pure entertainment. Rach 3, Sibelius VC, and Dvorak cello concerto are my trinity of concerti.


----------



## Simplicissimus

My dad, an amateur pianist who had little time for any piano music before Bartok, used to tell me, "Get run over by a car, bus, or train, it's all going to kill you. Rach 1, 2, and 3 are the same." By way of teenage rebellion, I spun the Chopin, Liszt, and Rachmaninoff mercilessly.

Minority opinion: Byron Janis playing No. 1 with Reiner/Chicago SO. Which is to say, No. 1, and that puts me in a tiny minority. Why? After his revisions in 1917, the No. 1 became by far (IMHO) the most disciplined and concise of the four. Not to disparage the others, but I value the No. 1 for its structure. Rachmaninoff's melodies are not among my favorites anyway, so the melodic superiority of the other piano concerti does not sway me. Nos. 2 and 3 are wonderful, but too emotional for me. No. 4 is an outlier and not a contender for me.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Pat Fairlea said:


> Probably the 3rd, for its depth and sustained intensity, but I really love the 4th and wish it were better known.


For concerto #4 do you prefer the revised version, or the 1926 original?

I kind of prefer #1 and #4 (either version I guess) to #2 and #3.


----------



## Rogerx

No. 3 hands down then 2-4-1


----------



## Bill Cooke

No. 3 is by far my favorite Rach piano concerto.


----------



## Art Rock

A very old poll. At the time I picked the 2nd, but now I would choose the Paganini (even though it's not a concerto).


----------



## Pat Fairlea

SixFootScowl said:


> For concerto #4 do you prefer the revised version, or the 1926 original?
> 
> I kind of prefer #1 and #4 (either version I guess) to #2 and #3.


Revised. Possibly only because it is heard more often and therefore is more familiar.


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm rocking with 2. And I see now that I'm a tiebreaker. Love 3 as well, of course


----------



## Strange Magic

Art Rock said:


> A very old poll. At the time I picked the 2nd, but now I would choose the Paganini (even though it's not a concerto).


I voted for #3 by a micron over #2, and then the Rhapsody comes in right behind in third position. And it would be called a concerto by everybody if R called it a concerto. I think it may have been a "marketing" decision by R to this time avoid the perceived stuffiness of "yet another hi-falutin' concerto" on the part of a man eager (in a very good way) to be thought of as an active player in the music of the day, and appreciated by his mixed audiences.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I still prefer the style of the Third...and the interpretation of Janis/Dorati/London Symphony on Mercury.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Pat Fairlea said:


> Revised. Possibly only because it is heard more often and therefore is more familiar.


Listened to 1 & 4 this evening, Rachmaninoff's recordings. I have to say, #1 is a fine piece. I know he revised it later on, but it's still an impressive Op.1.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Pat Fairlea said:


> Listened to 1 & 4 this evening, Rachmaninoff's recordings. I have to say, #1 is a fine piece. I know he revised it later on, but it's still an impressive Op.1.


There is an original version recording of #1, but my understanding is that the revisions were not that much, where as #4 had considerable revisions.


----------



## MusicSybarite

On hearing the 2nd movement from the No. 4 I confirm that Rachmaninov was one of the greatest composers of slow movements. Unabashedly romantic and memorable.


----------

