# Rachmaninov Piano Concerto #3



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

I've listened to the recordings of this piece in the Rachmaninov/Ormandy and the Horowitz/Rodzinski recordings and noticed that they are 7 to 10 minutes shorter than other recordings of the same work. I was wondering if these recordings had "cuts" in them and whether or not they depended on the alternate cadenza that Rachmaninov wrote. Can anyone help me make a determination here?

Dan


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

No they don't have cuts, the music is just played faster. However the solo cadenza in the 1st Movement can be exchanged via the different versions and they can vary a lot in length. Ashkenazy/Previn is an example of a likewise impressive, but slower version, with a long and much more monumental cadenza.


----------



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> No they don't have cuts, the music is just played faster. However the solo cadenza on the 1st Movement can be exchanged via the different versions and they can vary a lot in length. Ashkenazy/Previn is an example of a likewise impressive, but slower version, with a long and much more monumental cadenza.


I'm aware of two cadenzas. I know Rachmaninov wrote a 2nd one for performances where he was feeling up to snuff, but I can't tell the difference and which one is being played.

Thank you.

Dan


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Rachmaninoff used the shorter cadenza in his recording. He also takes his tempos on the quick side. He was capable of such incredible nuance and fine control of rubato that tempos which would feel hurried with another pianist seemed perfectly right with him.

Both cadenzas are effective, but the long one is just that much more impressive.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A bit of an aside to the focus of discussion but Dismrwonderful (and others here) might want to watch the famous performance Horowitz made with Zubin Mehta on television in the 1970's. Mehta is struggling to keep up in the finale, constantly turning around to check on Horowitz:

http://www.bilibili.com/video/av35538625/


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

dismrwonderful said:


> I've listened to the recordings of this piece in the Rachmaninov/Ormandy and the Horowitz/Rodzinski recordings and noticed that they are 7 to 10 minutes shorter than other recordings of the same work. I was wondering if these recordings had "cuts" in them and whether or not they depended on the alternate cadenza that Rachmaninov wrote. Can anyone help me make a determination here?
> 
> Dan


Rach/Ormandy has the standard cuts that Rach authorized, plus the shorter cadenza, also played very quickly--that may have been an artistic choice, but fitting the performance on 78s might also have been a factor. Not sure about Horowitz/Rodzinski but Horowitz used the cuts in the Horowitz/Reiner, plus the shorter cadenza. I would guess that Horowitz observed the cuts in his other performances as well. And Horowitz loved playing this super fast--the audiences ate it up.

The shorter cadenza is the more frequently recorded one particularly in the older classic recordings, but the longer one seems to be chosen by the younger generations of pianists.

edited to add: after a little light googling, it looks like Horowitz changed up whether to observe the cuts or not through his career. He used most of them in the Coates in 1930, only a couple in the Barbirolli, Koussevitsky and Reiner in the 1940s and 50s, and none with Ormandy and Mehta in the 1970s. So I would guess that the recording with Rodzinsky probably has two cuts like his Barbirolli, Koussevitsky and Reiner performances.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

howlingfantods said:


> Rach/Ormandy has the standard cuts that Rach authorized, plus the shorter cadenza, also played very quickly--that may have been an artistic choice, but fitting the performance on 78s might also have been a factor. Not sure about Horowitz/Rodzinski but Horowitz used the cuts in the Horowitz/Reiner, plus the shorter cadenza. I would guess that Horowitz observed the cuts in his other performances as well. And Horowitz loved playing this super fast--the audiences ate it up.
> 
> The shorter cadenza is the more frequently recorded one particularly in the older classic recordings, but the longer one seems to be chosen by the younger generations of pianists.


My bad yes, sorry, I see that the Wiki article does mention the cuts, not specifying them though.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Many modern recordings of the Rach 3 last about 44 minutes (though some are longer). Rachmaninoff's own, on YouTube, is only 30 minutes. This had a very large impact on price and affordability.

In 1940, top-line classical 78RPM sets went for the equivalent, in today's dollars, of about $45 per record. At an optimistic 4'30" per side, 44 minutes of music would have needed ten double-sided records at a total cost (equivalent) of $450 - a cruel blow in those days when, inflation aside, people were simply poorer than today.

By making some cuts and reducing playing time to 30 minutes, only seven records would be needed, at $315. Still expensive, but a substantial saving over the full-length product.


----------



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> Rach/Ormandy has the standard cuts that Rach authorized, plus the shorter cadenza, also played very quickly--that may have been an artistic choice, but fitting the performance on 78s might also have been a factor. Not sure about Horowitz/Rodzinski but Horowitz used the cuts in the Horowitz/Reiner, plus the shorter cadenza. I would guess that Horowitz observed the cuts in his other performances as well. And Horowitz loved playing this super fast--the audiences ate it up.
> 
> The shorter cadenza is the more frequently recorded one particularly in the older classic recordings, but the longer one seems to be chosen by the younger generations of pianists.
> 
> edited to add: after a little light googling, it looks like Horowitz changed up whether to observe the cuts or not through his career. He used most of them in the Coates in 1930, only a couple in the Barbirolli, Koussevitsky and Reiner in the 1940s and 50s, and none with Ormandy and Mehta in the 1970s. So I would guess that the recording with Rodzinsky probably has two cuts like his Barbirolli, Koussevitsky and Reiner performances.


Thank you for the information. Although I knew that Rach authorized cuts, it was beyond my powers to identify them and to be aware of them. Listening and score reading simultaneously is beyond me.

It seems from what I've learned that later recordings of the Ashkenazy/Matsuev generation play the whole thing. Even the Horowitz/Ormandy/NY Phil recording comes in at 43 minutes. This leaves a little confused. What I do know is that I really like the faster performances. They show a Lisztian ability without the grandiosity.

Dan


----------



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

[By making some cuts and reducing playing time to 30 minutes, only seven records would be needed, at $315. Still expensive, but a substantial saving over the full-length product. ]

The album of 78's I listened to when I was young was a set of three dbl sided records that I borrowed from the Public Library. I agree that cuts would have been necessary.

Dan


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

dismrwonderful said:


> I'm aware of two cadenzas. I know Rachmaninov wrote a 2nd one for performances where he was feeling up to snuff, but I can't tell the difference and which one is being played.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Dan


Here's the longer cadenza (commonly referred to as the Ossia):





It's more chordal, bigger and grander. More difficult to play and thus more of a challenge for concert pianists.

Here's the smaller cadenza:





I personally prefer the small one with the fleeter, lighter arpeggios. I find it better balanced and flows better with the rest of the movement. That said, my favorite current recording is the Sokolov/Tortelier, who used the Ossia.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ashkenazy was one who changed his mnd about whchcadenza he played. In his earlier recording he played the shorter one then changed to the longer one.


----------



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

I did enjoy watching this. Thank you.

Dan


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

After listening to many interpretations, I find the ones with the shorter arpeggio and/or cuts to be very unsatisfying. It spoils the one that used to be my favorite, Janis/Dorati, and now I much prefer Sokolov/Tortelier and Ashkenazy/Previn.

There is something very fulfilling about the full versions, with the ossia, that feels truncated in other performances.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

merlinus said:


> After listening to many interpretations, I find the ones with the shorter arpeggio and/or cuts to be very unsatisfying. It spoils the one that used to be my favorite, Janis/Dorati, and now I much prefer Sokolov/Tortelier and Ashkenazy/Previn.
> 
> There is something very fulfilling about the full versions, with the ossia, that feels truncated in other performances.


Rachmaninoff sanctioned cuts in several of his works, notably the Second Symphony and Second Piano Sonata. With his tendency to expansiveness, he seems to have been a bit insecure about the structure of these pieces. The sonata has been cut variously and played in a number of versions, and the Fourth Piano Concerto is generally played in a tightened-up revision. The trend has been to play the works complete, and those of us who love to surf wave upon wave of R's passionate melody feel cheated when anything is left out.


----------

