# Advice on the RACH 3: Hororwitz or Argerich?



## GrosseFugue

I want the most white-hot ferocious version of the Rach 3. The two names that come readily to mine are Horowitz and Argerich. I haven't heard their versions (sacrilege!) Whom do you recommend? Even if it's none of the above I'd like to know who. Thanks!


----------



## appoggiatura

Ashkenazy is the best I think. I have the recordings with Andre Previn and the London Symphony Orchestra and no one managed to beat that version.


----------



## Sid James

Horowitz's one is legendary. But no harm listening to Martha's one also...


----------



## joen_cph

*Horowitz* made 3; Coates is from the 30s, Reiner and Ormandy have better sound. All are magnificent, Reiner perhaps the best compromize as regards furiousness and sound, the Ormandy is slightly slower, the Coates has really poor sound.

*Argerich* made only one, it is magnificent. She has acknowledged it as her final statement of that concerto.

I would really try to have both, perhaps getting Argerich first.

*Argerich* can be had in various combinations. 
The combination with Kondrashin in Tchaikovsky´s 1st Concerto is splendid (it is IMO fresher than the ones she made with Dutoit and Abbado).
The same applies to the combination with Chailly and Prokofiev´s 3rd Concerto on the "Artistslive" label, which is probably a better Prokofiev 3rd than the other versions of that concerto with Abbado/DG and Dutoit/EMI. 
The one on the "Artistslive" label has exactly the same, good sound as the philips / decca version, it is the same recording.

*Ashkenazy* made 3 early ones, with Kondrashin, Previn and Ormandy. In general his approach is slow, the Previn release in particular has an impressive cadenza of the first movement, but Ashkenazy´s is "dignified" rather than furious if compared to Argerich and Horowitz. I´d consider Ashkenazy an interesting alternative reading to have when having heard Argerich and Horowitz. I found the Ormandy disappointing.

He also made a later one with Haitink, which I heard a bit of and found a good average recording.

I own all the other mentioned ones, plus some further: Merzhanov, Janis, Gilels/Cluytens, Rachmaninov, Bachauer, Volodos, Wild, Cliburn. Among them, Merzhanov for instance is also pretty high up on the furiousness scale, but the sound is not the best

EDIT: There are two more rare live performances with *Horowitz *on you-t, an early with Rodzinski and a very late one with Mehta. Personally I´m not familiar with either but am looking forward to check to them out, the Rodzinski especially, whereas the Mehta does seem to be very slow for Horowitz.


----------



## Ukko

Horowitz. Reiner or Ormandy, nothing much to choose between them. I think Argerich tried to out-Horowitz Horowitz in the finale; feels a little forced.


----------



## kv466

GrosseFugue said:


> I want the most white-hot ferocious version of the Rach 3.


You asked for it so I hope you're ready:

Earl Wild & The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra under the direction of Jascha Horenstein

The same goes for the other concertos and the Rhapsody. I still highly recommend you listen to the others so you can clearly tell the difference between them and truly 'white-hot ferocious' by a man quite deserving of his name,...Wild.


----------



## Vaneyes

Argerich/Chailly.


----------



## joen_cph

Just replayed the Earl Wild recording and it is indeed a good one too.


----------



## itywltmt

I just published a few weeks ago an article on a French music forum on Rach 3 and different versions. If there's enough "demand", maybe I'll program it on the Tuesday Blog...

I don't have much to add to the debate. There is a _YouTube _recording of Horowitz playing Rach 3 in the late 1970's with *Mehta and the NYPO *- Based on his discography, this would have been his last commercially available recording of it (he has about 15!) and probably his last public performance of the concerto, as he prettuy much stuck to solo piano from that point on. Not his best (I like his *Coates/LSO* recording in the 40's best) but still very strong!

On my Tuesday blog in Januuary, I featured the *Gilels/Cluytens *version, and it is one of my top 5 - well worth listening to, and shopping for. I love Argerich's energy, but Gilels is the only pianist I heard that managed the right balance between "athleticism" and musicianship. Better IMHO than Ashkenazy, that I don't rank high on my list of faves. *Kissin/Ozawa *live is musch better, though not as crisp sounding.


----------



## GoneBaroque

I like Mikhail Rudy with Mariss Jansons


----------



## Sofronitsky

William Kapell is really good! He's a wonderful pianist if you haven't heard of him already.


----------



## Guest

I like the live recording with Denis Matsuev and Valery Gergiev. It's very intense, plus he plays the heavier cadenza. (Both Horowitz and Argerich opt for the lighter ?'easier" one.)


----------



## vfv

I recommend Van Cliburn with Kirill Kondrashin in addition to Argerich and Horowitz. Kondrashin was an exellent accomapanist and his conducting is robust and "russian" here. Cliburn plays expressively.


----------



## Lukecash12

I'd suggest that you branch out, think of it in terms of the version played, the school of music that the pianist is from, etc. Horowitz and Argerich aren't the only valid options. Really, I'd suggest that performances of this piece of Rachmaninov's, that he and so many others consider a seminal piece of his, be regarded in terms of how they relate to Rachmaninov's playing of it.


----------



## Pestouille

If only Argerich and Horrowitz.... then Argerich, Argerich, Argerich!!!

If not try:

Stephen Hough with Litton
Simon Trpceski with Vassili Petrenko


----------



## Pestouille

Pestouille said:


> If only Argerich and Horrowitz.... then Argerich, Argerich, Argerich!!!
> 
> If not try:
> 
> Stephen Hough with Litton
> Simon Trpceski with Vassili Petrenko


Forgot Gilels with Cluytens... Sorry


----------

