# Piano concerto No 3 by Rachmaninoff ( your favorite interpretation)



## helenora

I wanna know what your favorite interpretation of this concerto are.
Yesterday I was listening many versions, many pianists, including Rachmaninoff himself, was a bit surprised by his tempo of the first movement, because usually pianists tend to play it in a bit slow motion style , perhaps it makes it sound more sentimental/melancolic, but Rachmaninoff is quite in tempo. So, far my favorites are Denis Matzuev and Alexis Weissenberg. But the praised interpretation by Martha Argerich isn't very satisfying for me, she tries to emphasize expression of almost every phrase, therefore it produces too many "accentos" for my taste at least, while each phrase each musical period should be played in a more objective manner, without this overemphasizing of a particular note or intonation what she precisely does in her interpetation. it was a version of 1982 with a Berlin orchestra BPO, orchestra was emotional as well...too emotional ..... I think they have a stereotype for playing Russian music and perhaps they get an entire concept of Russian music as being emotional /too emotion which is in some cases true, in some is not. Horovitz interpretation is somewhat close to Rachmaninoff's I think.


----------



## Pugg

I have two favorits, Van Cliburn in the legend category and Andrei Gavrilov in the "modern c.q digital" era :tiphat:


----------



## helenora

Pugg said:


> I have two favorits, Van Cliburn in the legend category and Andrei Gavrilov in the "modern c.q digital" era :tiphat:


have to compare them too. I've heard Gavrilov's interpretation long time ago, almost forgot it


----------



## Dr Johnson

Ashkenazy with André Previn conducting the LSO.


----------



## Guest

helenora said:


> have to compare them too. I've heard Gavrilov's interpretation long time ago, almost forgot it


I love his old one on Melodyia, but after watching him play it about two years ago, I was ashamed for him. I've never heard uglier, more banged out playing in my life, not to mention handfuls (yes, plural) of wrong notes.

Overall, Lazar Berman's is my favorite, with Denis Matsuev in a close second.

By the way, that concerto is neither solo nor chamber music!


----------



## helenora

Listening now _Gavrilov_'s interpretation with R. Muti. it's really "slow motion" compared to others, but what a sound! and I understand why he wants to play the first theme that slow, perhaps it's the softest version of all, *Ashkenazy*'s "swings" this effect he makes through minimal creschendi/diminuendi on a small scale within a short musical phrase sound very well thought of, very gentle and yet serene, none of exaggeration in his intonation . Still have to re-listen to Clibern as well to compare all of them haha, I'm really into this concert nowdays.


----------



## Pugg

helenora said:


> Listening now _Gavrilov_'s interpretation with R. Muti. it's really "slow motion" compared to others, but what a sound! and I understand why he wants to play the first theme that slow, perhaps it's the softest version of all, *Ashkenazy*'s "swings" this effect he makes through minimal creschendi/diminuendi on a small scale within a short musical phrase sound very well thought of, very gentle and yet serene, none of exaggeration in his intonation . Still have to re-listen to Clibern as well to compare all of them haha, I'm really into this concert nowdays.


He's got your attention that's what matters.


----------



## helenora

Kontrapunctus said:


> I love his old one on Melodyia, but after watching him play it about two years ago, I was ashamed for him. I've never heard uglier, more banged out playing in my life, not to mention handfuls (yes, plural) of wrong notes.
> 
> Overall, Lazar Berman's is my favorite, with Denis Matsuev in a close second.
> 
> By the way, that concerto is neither solo nor chamber music!


sure it's neither solo or chamber, but where to put it? I mean this topic, already foresaw comments like this one, but is it orchestra music??? hahaha, but who cares after all? I was interested in asking a question and luckily I've got some replies 

yes, agree, Gavrilov can be " untidy" while playing live hahaha and it depends what he dedicates himself now , may be just making money by playing lots of concerts, less art, more finance oriented.....can be....


----------



## helenora

Pugg said:


> He's got your attention that's what matters.


right! but you know they can capture one's attention just by being unusual, but after some time one listens again and thinks that it's just sort of surprise effect that caught your eyes, in this case ears haha,but none of that substance that makes one want to listen again and again this interpretation and to find something new in it, it should be something substantial in an interpretation and yes, you are right he caught my attention by that, by that substance that there is in his interpretation.


----------



## helenora

oh, my! just finished listening to Lazar Berman's first movement. It's so far the most delicate and subtle interpretations I've ever heard, such a good taste, and all those moments when a pianists accompanies an orchestra where there is no thematic material in piano's part he is the best, so refined , all that "pp" parts are just amazing . Now want to compare his cadenza in 1st movement with the one from Ashkenazy.....

*by the way which one do you prefer ( cadenza) the first with staccato or the 2nd so called" grande" ?* for example the 2nd one Matsuev plays, the first plays Horovitz and many others.


----------



## DavidA

This is one of the greatest romantic concertos. It has been derided by sniffy critics but it never fails to bring the house down in a good performance, which is what a concerto is supposed to do. It is certainly one of my favourites which you can see from the number of versions I have.
There are two cadenzas Rach wrote - the first (1) is the more skittish one and the one which the composer, Horowitz and most earlier interpreters favoured. The second the longer alternative (2) which appears tone more often played these days.
Of the versions I have:

Rachmaninoff himself is hot concours. A very fast performance though I don't know whether the recording process had anything to do with this. There are cuts he himself sanctioned. The recording is poor but this is a must with one of the pianistic greats playing his own concerto. Cadenza (1)

Horowitz / Barbirolli 1948 - stupendous performance with the great man at his peak. White hot playing. Vile recording quality with much distortion. Cadenza (1)

Horowitz / Reiner 1951 - another electric performance more restrained than in 1948. Reasonable recording quality. Cadenza (1)

Horowitz / Ormandy 1978 - made at Carnegie Hall to celebrate Horowitz's 50 years. Amazing he could play it still at his age though the performance is a bit wonky and has numerous technical slips. Cadenza (1)

Horowitz / Mehta 1978 - another live performance much better than the one with Ormandy. Also available on DVD. Moments of a special occasion. Cadenza (1)

Janis / Dorati - some terrific playing here from a really great romantic pianist before arthritis claim his hands. One or two minor cuts but this is right up there with the best. Cadenza (1)

Ashkenazy / Previn - probably the best of his recordings. It is a really 'safe bet' with really good playing and accompaniment. Cadenza (2)

Van Cliburn / Kondrashin live - he never seems to rush things but he has sovereign tone and some wondrous playing in the cadenza. Really a great performance caught on the wing. Cadenza (2)

Argerich / Chailly live - the virtuosity is incredible - Argerich attacks the concerto like a tigress - certainly for me the most exciting performance on disc - just listen to the last movement build up Cadenza (1)

Berman / Abbado - had heard very good reports of this but it doesn't quite excite me as it should, maybe because Abbado isn't that adept in this music. However, Berman's playing of the big cadenza - he really opens up here - just has to be heard. Cadenza (2)

Hough / Litton live - a very highly rated version but I'd not so sure. Hough doesn't seem to have the defining romantic tone that is needed. it almost seems to be an HIP version of Rachmaninoff's own. I'll have to have another listen. Cadenza (1)

Volodos / Levine live - perhaps the best played version of all on disc. You gasp at the ease with Volodos plays this most difficult of concertos. Perhaps why there is not quite the 'edge of seat' of the Argerich. But any piano-file will want to hear this incredible pianism. Cadenza (2)

Andsnes / Bergland live - he gives a very brillant, mercurial performance, surprisingly playing cadenza (2)

Just to say all these versions will go ve pleasure. If pushed just for one it would be Argerich


----------



## helenora

DavidA said:


> This is one of the greatest romantic concertos. It has been derided by sniffy critics but it never fails to bring the house down in a good performance, which is what a concerto is supposed to do. It is certainly one of my favourites which you can see from the number of versions I have.
> There are two cadenzas Rach wrote - the first (1) is the more skittish one and the one which the composer, Horowitz and most earlier interpreters favoured. The second the longer alternative (2) which appears tone more often played these days.
> Of the versions I have:
> 
> Rachmaninoff himself is hot concours. A very fast performance though I don't know whether the recording process had anything to do with this. There are cuts he himself sanctioned. The recording is poor but this is a must with one of the pianistic greats playing his own concerto. Cadenza (1)
> 
> Horowitz / Barbirolli 1948 - stupendous performance with the great man at his peak. White hot playing. Vile recording quality with much distortion. Cadenza (1)
> 
> Horowitz / Reiner 1951 - another electric performance more restrained than in 1948. Reasonable recording quality. Cadenza (1)
> 
> Horowitz / Ormandy 1978 - made at Carnegie Hall to celebrate Horowitz's 50 years. Amazing he could play it still at his age though the performance is a bit wonky and has numerous technical slips. Cadenza (1)
> 
> Horowitz / Mehta 1978 - another live performance much better than the one with Ormandy. Also available on DVD. Moments of a special occasion. Cadenza (1)
> 
> Janis / Dorati - some terrific playing here from a really great romantic pianist before arthritis claim his hands. One or two minor cuts but this is right up there with the best. Cadenza (1)
> 
> Ashkenazy / Previn - probably the best of his recordings. It is a really 'safe bet' with really good playing and accompaniment. Cadenza (2)
> 
> Van Cliburn / Kondrashin live - he never seems to rush things but he has sovereign tone and some wondrous playing in the cadenza. Really a great performance caught on the wing. Cadenza (2)
> 
> Argerich / Chailly live - the virtuosity is incredible - Argerich attacks the concerto like a tigress - certainly for me the most exciting performance on disc - just listen to the last movement build up Cadenza (1)
> 
> Berman / Abbado - had heard very good reports of this but it doesn't quite excite me as it should, maybe because Abbado isn't that adept in this music. However, Berman's playing of the big cadenza - he really opens up here - just has to be heard. Cadenza (2)
> 
> Hough / Litton live - a very highly rated version but I'd not so sure. Hough doesn't seem to have the defining romantic tone that is needed. it almost seems to be an HIP version of Rachmaninoff's own. I'll have to have another listen. Cadenza (1)
> 
> Volodos / Levine live - perhaps the best played version of all on disc. You gasp at the ease with Volodos plays this most difficult of concertos. Perhaps why there is not quite the 'edge of seat' of the Argerich. But any piano-file will want to hear this incredible pianism. Cadenza (2)


Thank you David for the very informative post! very interesting reading.
Janis/Dorati and Hough /Litton the only performances I haven't heard yet, so can't say anything about them.
But as for Argerich, can't question her virtuosity , but all her "tigressness" is excessive for this concert, and it can be heard throughout an entire concert. Not my taste. Volodoz, yes, easiness with which he plays, it's all of course about virtuosity, but let's say who would play this concert without being a virtuoso ?  any comments about his pedal? too much for my taste, that's why he isn't a number one . On the opposite Berman wins my appreciation of a listener, serene/philosophical part of the concert is at its best in this interpretation. Based on what you've written I can assume that you are more attracted to more so to say energetic/ brilliant interpretations, perhaps more romantic in a sense of typically understood concept of romanticism, which means quite emotional .


----------



## chesapeake bay

I was impressed by Lukas Vondracek's playing at the Queen Elizabeth competition this past month with Marin Alsop and the National Orchestra of Belgium providing exceptional orchestration.






as for recorded versions my favorite is Witold Malcuzynski and the Warsaw national Philharmonic conducted by W. Rowecki from 1965


----------



## DavidA

helenora said:


> Thank you David for the very informative post! very interesting reading.
> Janis/Dorati and Hough /Litton the only performances I haven't heard yet, so can't say anything about them.
> But as for Argerich, can't question her virtuosity , but all her "tigressness" is excessive for this concert, and it can be heard throughout an entire concert. Not my taste. Volodoz, yes, easiness with which he plays, it's all of course about virtuosity, but let's say who would play this concert without being a virtuoso ?  any comments about his pedal? too much for my taste, that's why he isn't a number one . On the opposite Berman wins my appreciation of a listener, serene/philosophical part of the concert is at its best in this interpretation. Based on what you've written I can assume that you are more attracted to more so to say energetic/ brilliant interpretations, perhaps more romantic in a sense of typically understood concept of romanticism, which means quite emotional .


Thanks for your comments. It's always interesting how other people see things. I should add that every version I have listed is well played and interesting and choice will be down (as you said) to personal taste.


----------



## Marinera

Horowitz 50's and mid 70s recording. 

I would like to have a good contemporary recording of the 3d, so I'll keep an eye on the thread for recommendations on young pianists.


----------



## DavidA

You might try Yuja Wang. One of her live performances:


----------



## DavidA

Just listening to the Horowitz Barbirolli recording. As I said the recording is vile as it has been remastered from a poor radio recording on acetates but the playing just has to be heard to be believed. Horowitz live was somewhat of a different animal from the studio version and this performance is smokin'! Rachmaninoff himself was present to hear this performance at Carnegie Hall - one must wonder just what he thought of this jet propelled virtuosity!


----------



## Guest

helenora said:


> oh, my! just finished listening to Lazar Berman's first movement. It's so far the most delicate and subtle interpretations I've ever heard, such a good taste, and all those moments when a pianists accompanies an orchestra where there is no thematic material in piano's part he is the best, so refined , all that "pp" parts are just amazing . Now want to compare his cadenza in 1st movement with the one from Ashkenazy.....
> 
> *by the way which one do you prefer ( cadenza) the first with staccato or the 2nd so called" grande" ?* for example the 2nd one Matsuev plays, the first plays Horovitz and many others.


I prefer the second one--seems much more passionate in the right hands.


----------



## helenora

DavidA said:


> You might try Yuja Wang. One of her live performances:


oh,my! yes, young! but..... please, don't accept that "moda" ....what Germans like now ( Europeans, but the main influence comes from Germans, as they always played this part of being a cradle of classical music adepts and promoters - and not in vain) ...... it seems that they accept all pianists ( and other instrumentalists) who have pretty faces, feminine with nice figures.....it's quite easily noticeable , they promote sort of young talents, but haven't you noticed from where those talents come from? and how they present them? they say they are talents? oh, my! in their own Hochschulen don't they have even better talents!? Why then do they care for all that national diversity and smiley faces? what is it for? it's not a coincidence! don't you think there is kinda agenda behind it? even if you look a bit away from soloists in a direction of conductors with very obvious example of Gustavo Dudamel. Is he such an amazing conductor? of course not. But they position him that way as if " wow, we 've never seen such a miracle before!".

They play race and nationality card jeje. That's not fun .... when Germans started promoting such sort of young talents it disappointed me. Yes, before German taste and people / musicians who they supported and promoted was reliable and serious, but that new things, their new policy that began several years ago or let's say about 10+ years ago, doesn't leave me much hope that in a world of classical music people still praise real talent. No, unfortunately not any more, it became business as well, and even affected by current politics agenda.....things to sell and buy - young pretty faces will always win when it comes to selling a new CD or DVD, because we know majority are not very particular about how real this talent is, for them talent is in prettiness itself  I don't say that those musicians Germans now support are in lack of a talent. No. They have it and they can be decent musicians, with great technique ( now days having a great technique isn't a wonder anymore, many performers possess it, but virtuosity is just a part of a talent .....) but how they present them!!!!!! way too overrated! oh, let's not compare Lang Lang with Pollini or Richter, etc, for that would be very unfair to those maîtres. At least here on a forum let's be reasonable and rely on our own opinion and taste and not on what media forces us to believe.....We all know the power of propaganda, ads, etc, "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it".

I'm apologizing in advance for any misunderstandings that readers of this post might perceive, especially taking in mind how "prejudice-free" are people now and if one mentions a word "nationality" and /or any further comments are unfavorable ( even if one says truth) others will start blaming a speaker for being intolerant to other people's differences . Sorry!


----------



## helenora

Kontrapunctus said:


> I prefer the second one--seems much more passionate in the right hands.


absolutely!

even it's noticeable that female pianists and some male pianists too prefer the first one for the simple reason , because they know they won't be able to perform well enough the 2nd one. It's because of quite objective reasons, nothing wrong about it is that for the second one one should be physically very strong and have lots of muscles in hands


----------



## DavidA

helenora said:


> oh,my! yes, young! but..... please, don't accept that "moda" ....what Germans like now ( Europeans, but the main influence comes from Germans, as they always played this part of being a cradle of classical music adepts and promoters - and not in vain) ...... it seems that they accept all pianists ( and other instrumentalists) who have pretty faces, feminine with nice figures.....it's quite easily noticeable , they promote sort of young talents, but haven't you noticed from where those talents come from? and how they present them? they say they are talents? oh, my! in their own Hochschulen don't they have even better talents!? Why then do they care for all that national diversity and smiley faces? what is it for? it's not a coincidence! don't you think there is kinda agenda behind it? even if you look a bit away from soloists in a direction of conductors with very obvious example of Gustavo Dudamel. Is he such an amazing conductor? of course not. But they position him that way as if " wow, we 've never seen such a miracle before!".
> 
> They play race and nationality card jeje. That's not fun .... when Germans started promoting such sort of young talents it disappointed me. Yes, before German taste and people / musicians who they supported and promoted was reliable and serious, but that new things, their new policy that began several years ago or let's say about 10+ years ago, doesn't leave me much hope that in a world of classical music people still praise real talent. No, unfortunately not any more, it became business as well, and even affected by current politics agenda.....things to sell and buy - young pretty faces will always win when it comes to selling a new CD or DVD, because we know majority are not very particular about how real this talent is, for them talent is in prettiness itself  I don't say that those musicians Germans now support are in lack of a talent. No. They have it and they can be decent musicians, with great technique ( now days having a great technique isn't a wonder anymore, many performers possess it, but virtuosity is just a part of a talent .....) but how they present them!!!!!! way too overrated! oh, let's not compare Lang Lang with Pollini or Richter, etc, for that would be very unfair to those maîtres. At least here on a forum let's be reasonable and rely on our own opinion and taste and not on what media forces us to believe.....We all know the power of propaganda, ads, etc, "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it".
> 
> I'm apologizing in advance for any misunderstandings that readers of this post might perceive, especially taking in mind how "prejudice-free" are people now and if one mentions a word "nationality" and /or any further comments are unfavorable ( even if one says truth) others will start blaming a speaker for being intolerant to other people's differences . Sorry!


Sorry but I can't see how being good looking (something I have never suffered from myself) detracts from one's ability as a musician. Liszt was allegedly the greatest ever pianist and was also so good looking as to make women swoon. Also why does nationality come into it? It is the playing that is important. And please note Lang Lang has not even been mentioned in connection with this concerto.


----------



## DavidA

Kontrapunctus said:


> I prefer the second one--seems much more passionate in the right hands.


It depends on the performance. As Rach himself played the first (and don't tell me he couldn't play the second!) the first has the composer's own preference. For broader, more muscular performances the second seems right whereas for the faster, lighter performances the first would seem the best.


----------



## helenora

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I can't see how being good looking (something I have never suffered from myself) detracts from one's ability as a musician. Liszt was allegedly the greatest ever pianist and was also so good looking as to make women swoon. Also why does nationality come into it? It is the playing that is important. And please note Lang Lang has not even been mentioned in connection with this concerto.


it's not about prettiness, it is about their choice, why do they choose young girls from different countries, many are non european origin, usually they are pretty, yes, nothing bad, only good, but why there is so few of them who are Germans or Europeans, why do they promote all that multi cultural diversity? but paying less attention to really talented youth of their own???? it is true. of course we don't speak about Lang Lang playing this concert even though he plays....but we speak about the entire problem of what is going on among classical music devotees in Germany and what they are up to.......what disturbs me is that there is no lack of talents in musical environments in this country, but still they are attracted to all that exotic performers (by exotic I mean different nationalities and races). But yes, I'm emotionally involved....can't take it easy


----------



## Pugg

Just remembered: Dimitri Sgouros (15 years old) - Rachmaninov Piano Concerto n.3 - 1984


----------



## DavidA

helenora said:


> it's not about prettiness, it is about their choice, why do they choose young girls from different countries, many are non european origin, usually they are pretty, yes, nothing bad, only good, but why there is so few of them who are Germans or Europeans, why do they promote all that multi cultural diversity? but paying less attention to really talented youth of their own???? it is true. of course we don't speak about Lang Lang playing this concert even though he plays....but we speak about the entire problem of what is going on among classical music devotees in Germany and what they are up to.......what disturbs me is that there is no lack of talents in musical environments in this country, but still they are attracted to all that exotic performers (by exotic I mean different nationalities and races). But yes, I'm emotionally involved....can't take it easy


I don't think race has too much to do with it. Lang Lang and Yuja Wang both studied with Gary Graffmann so they are both ultimately products off the American system. As to young pianists we have a very fine young pianist called Benjamin Grosvenor who is making waves. Sorry if Germany is bereft of talent at the moment but I don't think we should stop hearing talented pianists of other races because we haven't any of our own.


----------



## helenora

DavidA said:


> I don't think race has too much to do with it. Lang Lang and Yuja Wang both studied with Gary Graffmann so they are both ultimately products off the American system. As to young pianists we have a very fine young pianist called Benjamin Grosvenor who is making waves. Sorry if Germany is bereft of talent at the moment but I don't think we should stop hearing talented pianists of other races because we haven't any of our own.


yes, I understand that we people should listen to other pianists, but as for a talent.... well, that's another question.... perhaps for another discussion. and luckily Germany isn't in lack of good German pianists, t's that people now days are interested in something more exotic.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It is the playing that is important. And please note Lang Lang has not even been mentioned in connection with this concerto.


There's probably a good reason for that omission...


----------



## PeterF

The two vesrsions in my collection are :
Horowitz - Reiner
Volodos - Levine

I like them both.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Despite a number of good recent performances, I'm still a fan of Ashkenazy's first recording of this concerto, back in 1963 under Fistoulari. He plays the uncut version.







Argerich's famous recording is just a bit too reminiscent of bulls and china shops, even if her virtuosity is breathtaking.


----------



## Strange Magic

I still like my ancient (1961) Janis/Dorati on Mercury. Plus you get an equally good Rach 2 on the same CD, only with a change of orchestra.


----------



## DavidA

Pugg said:


> Just remembered: Dimitri Sgouros (15 years old) - Rachmaninov Piano Concerto n.3 - 1984


I must confess that a 15 year-old making a recording of this concerto appears aimed at making a quick buck rather than artistic integrity. How can a 15 year-old have a mature interpretation of a work such as this? It is indeed amazing he can play it. But let him get into his twenties at least before he commits it to disc.


----------



## maudia

What about Emil Gilels with André Cluytens ? Love this one too.


----------



## helenora

DavidA said:


> I must confess that a 15 year-old making a recording of this concerto appears aimed at making a quick buck rather than artistic integrity. How can a 15 year-old have a mature interpretation of a work such as this? It is indeed amazing he can play it. But let him get into his twenties at least before he commits it to disc.


and what it has to do with age? Kissin played Chopin's 1st concerto when he was 12.......but yes, one can say one should have experience , life experience which one has not when in his/her teens.....but if a factor of age plays part in a so called quality of interpretation so a nationality and then by default Asian pianists ( even educated by american/western professors! =D) can never interpret/ understand it the way European pianists do. and here it goes even with non-Asian Argerich with her bulls and china shops as one member very well said.....it's true....in each interpretation they ( pianists) express themselves.....they express more of their own character/ way of being through an interpretation , not what Rachmaninoff meant perhaps......the better interpretation, more mature the less of self ( of an interpreter ) we see, the more of true score of Rachmaninoff, let's say interpretation is more on a side of objectiveness.

PS just a short remark on how all that age and nationality stuff can be taken into consideration.

About Dimitri Sgouros interpretation whatever his age is this interpretation is way too nervous for my taste, in many parts too many of unnecessary rubato.... Many pianists now days have this technique to play Rachmaninoff's masterpiece in a very early age in their teens, that's why it's not a question of virtuosity any more at least for my understanding. But even more in this recording orchestra/soloist sound balance isn't in favor of pianist.


----------



## Mahlerian

helenora said:


> and what it has to do with age? Kissin played Chopin's 1st concerto when he was 12.......but yes, one can say one should have experience , life experience which one has not when in his/her teens.....but if a factor of age plays part in a so called quality of interpretation so a nationality and then by default Asian pianists ( even educated by american/western professors! =D) can never interpret/ understand it the way European pianists do.


So if oranges require sun to grow, they also require coca-cola? Thanks for giving me a new logical tool to prove just about anything.


----------



## helenora

Mahlerian said:


> So if oranges require sun to grow, they also require coca-cola? Thanks for giving me a new logical tool to prove just about anything.


oh, absolutely....to protect them from little insects and fungus as we all know that cola works better than any pestisides je


----------



## Pugg

DavidA said:


> I must confess that a 15 year-old making a recording of this concerto appears aimed at making a quick buck rather than artistic integrity. How can a 15 year-old have a mature interpretation of a work such as this? It is indeed amazing he can play it. But let him get into his twenties at least before he commits it to disc.


That was my point, not to recommended as the best. .
According to wiki his candle burned up quick .


----------



## Judith

I have it performed by Lang Lang and love it. Rachmaninov 3rd is one of my favourite piano concertos.


----------



## worov




----------



## Pugg

worov said:


>


Bit "clean" good though .


----------



## DavidA

Pugg said:


> That was my point, not to recommended as the best. .
> According to wiki his candle burned up quick .


Pity they didn't give him more time to grow as a musician rather than producing a hothouse plant!


----------



## DavidA

worov said:


>


Hough tries to go by Rachmaninoff's own recorded interpretation but it's interesting that I was hearing a pianist say the other day that Rach's recording is not the way he marks it in the score. I think Rach was influenced by the fact that he had to play it in four minute takes. Of course, the playing is marvellous but I wonder how he played it in concert.


----------



## mstar

DavidA said:


> I must confess that a 15 year-old making a recording of this concerto appears aimed at making a quick buck rather than *artistic integrity*. How can a 15 year-old have a *mature interpretation* of a work such as this? It is indeed amazing he can play it. But let him get into his twenties at least before he commits it to disc.


Key to any worthy interpretation - especially of the 3rd. To be completely honest, I'm not even giving that recording a listen.


----------



## Pugg

mstar said:


> Key to any worthy interpretation - especially of the 3rd. To be completely honest, I'm not even giving that recording a listen.


Now that's called bias or even snobbish.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I doubt Byron Janis/Antal Dorati/London Symphony on Mercury will ever be displaced in my affections.


----------



## Piaro

What's your opinion on latest Alexander Malofeev's interpretation ?


----------



## merlinus

Interesting that this thread has been resurrected, as I am going through a fair number of interpretations. So far, no one comes even close to Grigory Sokolov, whether with Tortelier or Ollila.

Janis/Dorati and Ashkenazy/Previn are also excellent, and I look forward to hearing Trpčeski/Petrenko, and re-listening to Volodos/Levine and Argerich/Chailly. Upon a recommendation, I listened to Rudy/Jansons last night. Bloody awful in every regard!

Others I have auditioned but were not to my liking include Buniatishvili/Jarvi (amazing technique, but too fast to really plumb the depths of feeling and emotion), Lisitsa/Francis (not enough fire), and Wang/Dudamel (again, superb technique but a very shallow interpretation).

And I much prefer the longer cadenza.


----------



## merlinus

Just finished listening to Volodos/Levine. Clearly Volodos has amazing technique, but at times it seems he is just playing the notes. There are some wonderful moments, but overall I missed the passion, intensity, edginess, and fire of Sokolov and Argerich, which this piece definitely needs in order to succeed.

The BPO plays well, but nothing outstanding in this recording.


----------



## Piaro

Referring to the top I'd mention the best known performances of the previous century one with Rachmaninov, the other with Gieseking and finally Horowitz (the earliest recordings of course).

Then among my very best are Gilels and Berman. I also like Volodos and Bronfman. Live performances of this work from Lugansky, Pletnev or Sokolov left me with a good impression - Sokolov has a more romantic view on the piece. 

Finally Sgouros' '84 interpretation is a great one. Especially if you consider his age at the time, there is no other similar recording till today.


----------



## rbacce

Horowitz and Mehta in the 1970s


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I'm very fond of Ashkenazy's first recording of Rach 3rd, with Anatole Fistoulari and the LSO. He gets into the soul of the piece without the rather over-mannered tendency that he developed later on. Ashkenazy lets the music flow in this recording.


----------



## Judith

Since my last post two years ago, tastes have changed since Lang Lang days, and now love Stephen Hough interpretation. Lovely performance and love the way he glides on the piano


----------



## merlinus

Very much enjoyed Trpčeski/Petrenko last night. Lots of tenderness and feelings, and plenty of intensity and firepower, along with terrific playing from both orchestra and soloist. My one reservation is that the piano was overemphasized in many places, which detracted some from the listening experience.


----------



## Josquin13

For this concerto, I like pianists that appear to have listened to Rachmaninov's recordings & interpretations of the work, and have at least considered his tempi choices, which can be on the fast side. The composer doesn't turn the concerto into schmaltz, but makes music out of it. He plays with a sense of imagination & fantasy, and with just the right amount of classical restraint & taste. In other words, he doesn't thrash about or overly pound on the keys too heavily (like Horowitz with Ormandy, or Argerich). On the flip side, I don't like pianists whose phrasing lacks character, variety, & nuance, & who appear to simply play the correct notes, like many of today's pianists.

Rachmaninov:










After Rachmaninov, here are my top 11 recordings (in no particular order):

*Augustin Anievas/Rafael Frübeck de Burgos:













*Alexis Weissenberg/Georges Pretre:





*Rafael Orozco/Edo de Waart:





*Van Cliburn/Kirill Kondrashin:





*Tamas Vasary/Yuri Ahronovitch:





*Bryon Janis/Antal Dorati:





*Moura Lympany/Anthony Collins:









*Vladimir Horowitz/Fritz Reiner:





*Vladimir Horowitz/Albert Coates:





*Vladimir Ashkenazy/Andre Previn:





*Zoltan Kocsis/Edo De Waart:





Honorable mention:

Earl Wild/Horenstein:





Ashkenazy/Haitink:


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Over on Current Listening, I have just posted a deservedly glowing tribute to Watts' 1970 recording with Ozawa and NYPO.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Josquin13 said:


> For this concerto, I like pianists that appear to have listened to Rachmaninov's recordings & interpretations of the work, and have at least considered his tempi choices, which can be on the fast side. The composer doesn't turn the concerto into schmaltz, but makes music out of it. He plays with a sense of imagination & fantasy, and with just the right amount of classical restraint & taste. In other words, he doesn't thrash about or overly pound on the keys too heavily (like Horowitz with Ormandy, or Argerich). On the flip side, I don't like pianists whose phrasing lacks character, variety, & nuance, & who appear to simply play the correct notes, like many of today's pianists.
> 
> Rachmaninov:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Rachmaninov, here are my top 11 recordings (in no particular order):
> 
> *Augustin Anievas/Rafael Frübeck de Burgos:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Alexis Weissenberg/Georges Pretre:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rafael Orozco/Edo de Waart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Van Cliburn/Kirill Kondrashin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tamas Vasary/Yuri Ahronovitch:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bryon Janis/Antal Dorati:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Moura Lympany/Anthony Collins:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Vladimir Horowitz/Fritz Reiner:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Vladimir Horowitz/Albert Coates:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Vladimir Ashkenazy/Andre Previn:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Zoltan Kocsis/Edo De Waart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honorable mention:
> 
> Earl Wild/Horenstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashkenazy/Haitink:


No Martha Argerich?

iS Argerich one I should get, or is it an anomaly?


----------



## starthrower

The Sokolov sounds good to my ears. A commenter at YouTube said in 50 years of listening to this concerto, Sokolov is the best he's heard along with the composer himself.


----------



## Strange Magic

I'll go along with the Byron Janis/Dorati. The Mercury CD also offers Janis/Dorati Rachmaninoff No. 2, with the Minneapolis Symphony, another fine and faithful peformance.


----------



## howlingfantods

DavidA said:


> You might try Yuja Wang. One of her live performances:


Lots of personality there, I like that much better than her CD with Dudamel which is on the bland side. Wang often seems to release lesser performances commercially than various performances I've heard online, seems like she could be curating her releases better.

For me, though, nobody matches Sokolov with either Tortelier (on DG) or Ollila (not released commercially). Staggering virtuosity and power coupled with incredible articulation and clarity.


----------



## Rogerx

This one and Van Cliburn.


----------



## DavidA

Piaro said:


> Referring to the top I'd mention the best known performances of the previous century one with Rachmaninov, the other with Gieseking and finally Horowitz (the earliest recordings of course).
> 
> Then among my very best are Gilels and Berman. I also like Volodos and Bronfman. Live performances of this work from Lugansky, Pletnev or Sokolov left me with a good impression - Sokolov has a more romantic view on the piece.
> 
> *Finally Sgouros' '84 interpretation is a great one. Especially if you consider his age at the time, there is no other similar recording till today*.


Sgouros is remarkable for his age. But great? Never. Just a pity he was pushed into becoming a child prodigy instead of allowing to mature. I feel he would've become a far more substantial artist


----------



## DavidA

Note that Weissenberg has two recordings one with Pretre and one Bernstein. The remarkable thing is they are both completely different interpretations. They are both worth listening to and the virtuosity is incredible. He plays Zcadenza one


----------



## Tsaraslondon

SixFootScowl said:


> No Martha Argerich?
> 
> iS Argerich one I should get, or is it an anomaly?


You should get it. Fantastic performance.


----------



## howlingfantods

The Argerich strikes me as a recording designed to impress you with Argerich as a pianist more than designed to impress you with Rachmaninov's composition--up to and including the sound balance with the piano much louder than the orchestra even when the piano is playing accompaniment. 

She is undeniably impressive, but I prefer many other recordings for actually bringing out what makes the piece special.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

In y'all's opinion, what is the prime Horowitz recording to hear? I have heard very little from him in general, and have gathered legendary opinions about his Rach 3 recordings. Sound quality is not as big of a priority for me- just the most convincing interpretation!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Allegro Con Brio said:


> In y'all's opinion, what is the prime Horowitz recording to hear? I have heard very little from him in general, and have gathered legendary opinions about his Rach 3 recordings. Sound quality is not as big of a priority for me- just the most convincing interpretation!


I believe Horowitz has four recordings of the third concerto. You might be able to glean some thoughts from *this thread*. Rachmaninoff's third concerto is discussed there several times in posts and responses. (Ctrl-F then search Rachmaninoff, and unfortunately also Rachmaninov, or just leave the ending off your search.) I too was interested and ended up ordering the Reiner set because it has good reviews and I got it for $4 shipped.


----------



## Bigbang

I have 4 of his Rach's..with Coates, Reiner, Koussevitzky, and Ormandy. I remember liking Coates even though the sound is comprised of course. Never care for the Ormandy as it is the last one (1978) and it is live I think but the sound in places (balance) it is hard to hear all the details. I never sought these works, bought them at thrift stores...Coates was a library weed but for nothing I buy to hear it. So I will have to listen to reiner/coates and see what I like best....


----------



## SixFootScowl

*This is interesting*:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

SixFootScowl said:


> *This is interesting*:


I have heard parts of that. Some say it's the best interpretation this concerto has ever received. Thing is, it was an unauthorized recording that has simply wretched sound quality; almost unlistenable. The ending is absolutely hilarious; some guy shouts "Bravo!" like a madman at the final note. I do want to give it a proper listen sometime soon, as there has to be some fantastic stuff contained within.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I have heard parts of that. Some say it's the best interpretation this concerto has ever received. Thing is, it was an unauthorized recording that has simply wretched sound quality; almost unlistenable. The ending is absolutely hilarious; some guy shouts "Bravo!" like a madman at the final note. I do want to give it a proper listen sometime soon, as there has to be some fantastic stuff contained within.


h sound clips at Presto indicated poor sound. Rachmaninoff's own playing on CD sounds way better.


----------



## MarkW

I have not heard a lot of interpretations, but the Weissenberg/Pretre pleases me immensely.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Piaro said:


> What's your opinion on latest Alexander Malofeev's interpretation ?


Hey, this kid is AWESOME! Perhaps some of the naysayers above (starting at post 41) will recant.


----------



## ZeR0

My favorite recording of Rachmaninoff's Third is Horowitz with Reiner. Also, you can't go wrong with Rachmaninoff himself.


----------

