# Best recordings of Rachmaninoff's piano concerrtos?



## Itullian

Individual and box set.

:tiphat:


----------



## Albert7

Lisitsa doing the box set version:


----------



## Albert7

Best individual recording ever:


----------



## JACE

I won't make any claim of "best," but this is my _favorite_ set:










Tamás Vásáry, Yuri Ahronovitch, London SO (DG)

*EDIT:*

Aside from the set above, here are some other individual favorites:










Piano Concerto No. 2 - Arthur Rubinstein, Eugene Ormandy, Philadelphia O (RCA)










Piano Concerto No. 3 - Evgeny Kissin, Seiji Ozawa, Boston SO (RCA)










Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini - Jean-Philippe Collard, Michel Plasson, Orchestre du Capitole de Toulouse (EMI)


----------



## Marschallin Blair

I go for individual performances, myself:

Piano Concerto No. 1: Ozawa/Zimerman with the BSO on DG

Piano Concerto No. 2: Gergiev/Kissin with the LSO on RCA

Piano Concerto No. 3: Chailly/Argerich with the RSO Berlin on Decca

Piano Concerto No. 4: Previn/Ashkenazy with the LSO on Decca


----------



## Albert7

Great clip that I think you would enjoy in fact:


----------



## Balthazar

Since acquiring this set, I find myself listening most often to Stephen Hough with Andrew Litton and Dallas on Hyperion. Great sound, great energy, great clarity.









A much more detailed review than I can offer (available here) begins:

"This is the best set of Rachmaninov Piano Concertos ever recorded. You have no idea how hard I worked not to come to this conclusion, knowing full well just how skeptically such a claim is likely to be received. I compared Stephen Hough to multiple Ashkenazy renditions, to Earl Wild, to Zoltan Kocsis, to Argerich, Rubinstein, Richter, Rodriguez, and Horowitz. I ploughed through several obscure Russian recordings, two cycles on Naxos, and a slew of EMIs. I re-auditioned Pletnev and sampled two separate remasterings of Rachmaninov's own performances. I listened with scores, then waited a few days, and then tried again without them. I played these discs to colleagues, to friends, and to people whose musical judgment I trust as much if not more than my own. But the conclusion was inescapable: there never has been a complete cycle at this level of consistent excellence. There's no doubt about it."

While I can't vouch for the superlative claims, I am very pleased with my set and am not looking to pick up any additional interpretations.


----------



## Albert7

On a novelty level, the composer playing his own pieces is an interesting read but not my favorite:

http://www.amazon.com/Rachmaninoff-Plays-The-Piano-Concertos/dp/B000003FGS


----------



## Il_Penseroso

The complete set (with the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini) 

-The Composer as soloist with the Philadelphia orchestra conducted by Eugene Ormandy and Leopold Stokowski

-Augustin Anievas with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos, Moshe Atzmón and Aldo Ceccato 


Individual Recordings 

Concerto No.2 

-Alexander Brailowsky with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra conducted by Enrique Jorda 

Concerto No.3 

-Vladimir Horowitz with the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Albert Coates (with some cuts)

-Vladimir Horowitz with the RCA Victor Symphony Orchestra conducted by Fritz Reiner 

-Witold Małcużyński with the Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Paul Kletzki

Concerto No.4 

-Arturo Benedetti Micehalngeli with the Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Ettore Gracis

Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini

-Leonard Pennario with the Boston Pops Orchestra conducted by Arthur Fiedler


----------



## DavidA

No 1. Byron Janis or Earl Wild

No 2 Richter

No 3. Argerich or Horowitz with Reiner. There is an incredible live Horowitz / Barbirolli but the recording is terrible.

No 4. Michelangeli

Rhapsody - Earl Wild

Complete set - Stephen Hough. Earl Wild is fantastic but he does make cuts in no 3


----------



## Pugg

JACE said:


> I won't make any claim of "best," but this is my _favorite_ set:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tamás Vásáry, Yuri Ahronovitch, London SO (DG)


Mine also :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

albertfallickwang said:


> Best individual recording ever:
> 
> View attachment 65237


I own this recording. It is a fine one, and it's considered by many one of the classic modern versions. It must be pointed out, though, that the performance is quintessential Argerich: intense, driving, fierce. This may or may not be your kind of Rachmaninoff. It is not mine - but, interestingly and importantly, it isn't the composer's either.

Rachmaninoff's own recording of the third concerto was the first performance of it I ever heard. The sound was boxy and shallow. It didn't matter much; I could hear the playing. It was playing of extraordinary subtlety and deceptive ease - powerful and passionate, but never self-indulgent and never strained. It was only as I became familiar with other pianists' approach to his music that the meaning of what I had heard in the composer's playing became clear: in a word, his playing taught me what "aristocratic" means when applied to the performance of music.

When people opine that Rachmaninoff is "sentimental," or when they assume that to interpret his music properly means to maximize what commonly passes for "expressiveness" or "passion," I refer them to the composer's sonically faded but still unique recordings of his concertos. Those recordings teach us that lightness, delicacy, subtlety, clarity, restraint, and poise are, in the hands of a master pianist, distinct qualities of feeling, and that when Rachmaninoff's music is understood to contain those qualities in balance with passion and sentiment it takes on a strength and nobility of character which is unique to him and essential to his spirit.

There are innumerable recordings of Rachmaninoff's concertos and many ways of interpreting them. Argerich's way is peculiarly hers. It is certainly compelling in its way. But to listen to it beside the composer's is to compare a wildcat with a lion.


----------



## DavidA

Rach's own recordings are unique and authoritative, of course, as he wrote the concerti with himself in mind. This does not mean, however, that they are the only way of doing them. One also has to bear in mind the limitations of the recording process of the day could also put limitations on the performers - having to rehearse in short takes. There is also the matter of the recordings which are pretty dire. But we would, no doubt, give anything to have a recording of (eg) Liszt playing his music.


----------



## omega

It is maybe not the best, but this is the box I own and I am satisfied with it:


----------



## leomarillier

Rach himself of course. I love the sound on Ashkenazy's set. But I'm just appalled nobody mentioned - yet - Volodos' live recording of Rachmaninoff 3 with Levine and the BPO. It's the most encompassing piano playing I've ever heard. You have to believe the power he takes out of this piano in the short cadenza before the vivacissimo in the finale, he's as loud as the Berlin Phil playing fff! The immense amount of emotion here comes from an incredibly subtle rubato and a great attention to middle lines. I could listen to this recording all day. The playing of the Berliners is always top notch - soli in the second movement esp - and Levine is wonderfully reactive to Volodos's cathartic experience. The build-ups are massive, and the more delicate sections (e flat section in the finale) are handled with such magical tones, the piano sounds like little angel bells. I could go on like this for days, this recording made me love the piano concerto genre, and it's just unbelievable that a live recording has such qualities of clarity. I mean even Argerich isn't as exciting as that!


----------



## shadowdancer

As a box, this one here is my favorite:








Individual performances, I would like to mention Cliburn/Kondrashin on Cto 3 (Living Stereo) and, as already mentioned, Argerich/Chailly (Philips).


----------



## Polyphemus

My own personal favourite recording of No 3 is, was and always will be Ashkenazy's early 60's recording with the LSO under Fistoulari. (1963 ?)
I have always favoured Ashkenazy as an interpreter of Rachmaninov, both as pianist and conductor.


----------



## DavidA

leomarillier said:


> Rach himself of course. I love the sound on Ashkenazy's set. But I'm just appalled nobody mentioned - yet - Volodos' live recording of Rachmaninoff 3 with Levine and the BPO. It's the most encompassing piano playing I've ever heard. You have to believe the power he takes out of this piano in the short cadenza before the vivacissimo in the finale, he's as loud as the Berlin Phil playing fff! The immense amount of emotion here comes from an incredibly subtle rubato and a great attention to middle lines. I could listen to this recording all day. The playing of the Berliners is always top notch - soli in the second movement esp - and Levine is wonderfully reactive to Volodos's cathartic experience. The build-ups are massive, and the more delicate sections (e flat section in the finale) are handled with such magical tones, the piano sounds like little angel bells. I could go on like this for days, this recording made me love the piano concerto genre, and it's just unbelievable that a live recording has such qualities of clarity. I mean even Argerich isn't as exciting as that!


Not to devalue Volodos, but I would actually say that Argerich is just as exciting!


----------



## DavidA

shadowdancer said:


> As a box, this one here is my favorite:
> View attachment 65244
> 
> 
> .


You certainly can't go wrong with Ashkenazy. But go for the set with Previn, especially if you want to have the big cadenza in no 3


----------



## DavidA

Other great recordings:

Janis in no 3

Katchen in no 2

Weissenburg with Karajan in no 2 is interesting, especially for the orchestral contribution. Never more lush!

Graffmann with Bernstein in no 2 and the Paganini Rhapsody.


----------



## Polyphemus

DavidA said:


> You certainly can't go wrong with Ashkenazy. But go for the set with Previn, especially if you want to have the big cadenza in no 3


I have the LSO/Previn set and indeed the Concertgebouw/Haitink set but still the earlier Fistoulari recording seems to hold sway with me. In fact if I see Ashkenazy/Rachmaninov on an album cover it has a magnetic effect on me.


----------



## ptr

Wild's is my general to go to set, love Rachmaninov's own with Stokowski, Love Richter's second (Wislocki) and the second and third with Gieseking and Mengelberg, Jorge Bolet's second (Dutoit) and Third (Fischer), Horowitz in the Third with Ormandy, Pletnev in the Third with Rostropovich, the Fourth and Paganini Rhapsody with Trpceski and Petrenko! (Never really wormed that much to the first)

Just the tip of the iceberg!

/ptr


----------



## Ukko

Woodduck said:


> I own this recording. It is a fine one, and it's considered by many one of the classic modern versions. It must be pointed out, though, that the performance is quintessential Argerich: intense, driving, fierce. This may or may not be your kind of Rachmaninoff. It is not mine - but, interestingly and importantly, it isn't the composer's either.
> 
> Rachmaninoff's own recording of the third concerto was the first performance of it I ever heard. The sound was boxy and shallow. It didn't matter much; I could hear the playing. It was playing of extraordinary subtlety and deceptive ease - powerful and passionate, but never self-indulgent and never strained. It was only as I became familiar with other pianists' approach to his music that the meaning of what I had heard in the composer's playing became clear: in a word, his playing taught me what "aristocratic" means when applied to the performance of music.
> 
> When people opine that Rachmaninoff is "sentimental," or when they assume that to interpret his music properly means to maximize what commonly passes for "expressiveness" or "passion," I refer them to the composer's sonically faded but still unique recordings of his concertos. Those recordings teach us that lightness, delicacy, subtlety, clarity, restraint, and poise are, in the hands of a master pianist, distinct qualities of feeling, and that when Rachmaninoff's music is understood to contain those qualities in balance with passion and sentiment it takes on a strength and nobility of character which is unique to him and essential to his spirit.
> 
> There are innumerable recordings of Rachmaninoff's concertos and many ways of interpreting them. Argerich's way is peculiarly hers. It is certainly compelling in its way. But to listen to it beside the composer's is to compare a wildcat with a lion.


I quoted all of that because I agree with the sense of it very closely. Probably. Its a cogent presentation by an educated Englishman, so I would be unable to 'put it that way', being somewhat deficient in cogency, education and Englishness.

Rachmaninoff's recording of the 4th is a special case because he made significant cuts in it. The mature composer could not be trusted with scissors around his earlier works.


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> I own this recording. It is a fine one, and it's considered by many one of the classic modern versions. It must be pointed out, though, that the performance is quintessential Argerich: intense, driving, fierce. This may or may not be your kind of Rachmaninoff. It is not mine - but, interestingly and importantly, it isn't the composer's either.
> 
> Rachmaninoff's own recording of the third concerto was the first performance of it I ever heard. The sound was boxy and shallow. It didn't matter much; I could hear the playing. It was playing of extraordinary subtlety and deceptive ease - powerful and passionate, but never self-indulgent and never strained. It was only as I became familiar with other pianists' approach to his music that the meaning of what I had heard in the composer's playing became clear: in a word, his playing taught me what "aristocratic" means when applied to the performance of music.
> 
> When people opine that Rachmaninoff is "sentimental," or when they assume that to interpret his music properly means to maximize what commonly passes for "expressiveness" or "passion," I refer them to the composer's sonically faded but still unique recordings of his concertos. Those recordings teach us that lightness, delicacy, subtlety, clarity, restraint, and poise are, in the hands of a master pianist, distinct qualities of feeling, and that when Rachmaninoff's music is understood to contain those qualities in balance with passion and sentiment it takes on a strength and nobility of character which is unique to him and essential to his spirit.
> 
> There are innumerable recordings of Rachmaninoff's concertos and many ways of interpreting them. Argerich's way is peculiarly hers. It is certainly compelling in its way. But to listen to it beside the composer's is to compare a wildcat with a lion.


And I agree on many points honestly. However, it is a landmark recording and a must have.

And it does mean that you have to have more than one version .


----------



## Itullian

Woodduck said:


> I own this recording. It is a fine one, and it's considered by many one of the classic modern versions. It must be pointed out, though, that the performance is quintessential Argerich: intense, driving, fierce. This may or may not be your kind of Rachmaninoff. It is not mine - but, interestingly and importantly, it isn't the composer's either.
> 
> Rachmaninoff's own recording of the third concerto was the first performance of it I ever heard. The sound was boxy and shallow. It didn't matter much; I could hear the playing. It was playing of extraordinary subtlety and deceptive ease - powerful and passionate, but never self-indulgent and never strained. It was only as I became familiar with other pianists' approach to his music that the meaning of what I had heard in the composer's playing became clear: in a word, his playing taught me what "aristocratic" means when applied to the performance of music.
> 
> When people opine that Rachmaninoff is "sentimental," or when they assume that to interpret his music properly means to maximize what commonly passes for "expressiveness" or "passion," I refer them to the composer's sonically faded but still unique recordings of his concertos. Those recordings teach us that lightness, delicacy, subtlety, clarity, restraint, and poise are, in the hands of a master pianist, distinct qualities of feeling, and that when Rachmaninoff's music is understood to contain those qualities in balance with passion and sentiment it takes on a strength and nobility of character which is unique to him and essential to his spirit.
> 
> There are innumerable recordings of Rachmaninoff's concertos and many ways of interpreting them. Argerich's way is peculiarly hers. It is certainly compelling in its way. But to listen to it beside the composer's is to compare a wildcat with a lion.


Thanks, I do prefer a more relaxed approach.


----------



## JACE

omega said:


> It is maybe not the best, but this is the box I own and I am satisfied with it:
> View attachment 65241


I have the Thibaudet/Ashkenazy CD with the First & Third Concertos, and I like it very much too. :cheers:


----------



## JACE

Itullian said:


> Thanks, I do prefer a more relaxed approach.


Itullian,

If that's the case, I would avoid pianists like Wild, Horowitz, Richter, and Argerich since they're on the more "fiery" end of the spectrum.

I would instead look to Tamás Vásáry (my fave) or Jean-Philippe Collard. Their interpretations lean more toward the "poetic" end of the spectrum. (The Kissin/Ozawa PC 3 is another special recording that's more relaxed and particularly lyrical.)

As a reference point, I'd put Ashkenazy's interpretations somewhere in the middle. (Incidentally, I agree with others who point to his set with Previn as his best.)


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I own this recording. It is a fine one, and it's considered by many one of the classic modern versions. It must be pointed out, though, that the performance is quintessential Argerich: intense, driving, fierce. This may or may not be your kind of Rachmaninoff. It is not mine - but, interestingly and importantly, it isn't the composer's either.
> 
> Rachmaninoff's own recording of the third concerto was the first performance of it I ever heard. The sound was boxy and shallow. It didn't matter much; I could hear the playing. It was playing of extraordinary subtlety and deceptive ease - powerful and passionate, but never self-indulgent and never strained. It was only as I became familiar with other pianists' approach to his music that the meaning of what I had heard in the composer's playing became clear: in a word, his playing taught me what "aristocratic" means when applied to the performance of music.
> 
> When people opine that Rachmaninoff is "sentimental," or when they assume that to interpret his music properly means to maximize what commonly passes for "expressiveness" or "passion," I refer them to the composer's sonically faded but still unique recordings of his concertos. Those recordings teach us that lightness, delicacy, subtlety, clarity, restraint, and poise are, in the hands of a master pianist, distinct qualities of feeling, and that when Rachmaninoff's music is understood to contain those qualities in balance with passion and sentiment it takes on a strength and nobility of character which is unique to him and essential to his spirit.
> 
> There are innumerable recordings of Rachmaninoff's concertos and many ways of interpreting them. Argerich's way is peculiarly hers. It is certainly compelling in its way. But to listen to it beside the composer's is to compare a wildcat with a lion.


- Argerich of course being the aristocratic lioness, and Rachmaninov being the Grand Old Man in the old folks' home.


----------



## Albert7

I detect a contrast to approaching these concertos: passion versus poetry... Or perhaps there can be fiery poetry? or quiet passion? Not mutually exclusive to me.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> I detect a contrast to approaching these concertos: passion versus poetry... Or perhaps there can be fiery poetry? or quiet passion? Not mutually exclusive to me.


Certainly.

_'Non disputandum_.'

I just _evaluate_ Argerich's aesthetic approach a bit differently than does Lord Woodduck.


----------



## Guest

For a complete set, I also really enjoy the Hough/Litton set. For individual recordings, though, I have to say that I like Richter on the 2nd, and Horowitz/Reiner on the 3rd.

I, too, have heard the Rachmaninoff recordings, and really enjoyed them - if only the recording technology was a little further advanced when they were recorded!!!


----------



## Albert7

Itullian said:


> Thanks, I do prefer a more relaxed approach.


Perhaps that relegates the Argerich fiery version to listening during a treadmill workout. Lots of exercise for the ears, lots of exercise for the legs.


----------



## Ukko

albertfallickwang said:


> Perhaps that relegates the Argerich fiery version to listening during a treadmill workout. Lots of exercise for the ears, lots of exercise for the legs.


Didn't Argerich record the 3rd with Abbado? Seems like that's the one I have. My impression was that she got excited too early, leaving herself nowhere to go. The contrast with Cliburn's 2nd with Reiner is pretty extreme; much more than the works themselves present.


----------



## Albert7

Ukko said:


> Didn't Argerich record the 3rd with Abbado? Seems like that's the one I have. My impression was that she got excited too early, leaving herself nowhere to go. The contrast with Cliburn's 2nd with Reiner is pretty extreme; much more than the works themselves present.


I don't know of any other recording that Argerich did for the Rach piano concertos. I only have the Phillips one that I downloaded from iTunes. I don't know about any DG version.


----------



## Woodduck

Ukko said:


> Didn't Argerich record the 3rd with Abbado? Seems like that's the one I have. My impression was that she got excited too early, leaving herself nowhere to go. The contrast with Cliburn's 2nd with Reiner is pretty extreme; much more than the works themselves present.


Argerich did record it twice. It might be interesting to compare them. Your comment about "leaving herself nowhere to go" is, I suspect, spot on. She's a fantastic musician and player, and her recordings of Romantic concertos tend to be my favorites or among my top few (Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev). But her view of Rach's third replaces the Aristocrat of Old Russia with a Bolshevik revolutionary. Visceral, yes, but I don't visualize the man himself as I listen.

I'm sure Rachmaninoff didn't expect all performances of his music to be like his own; he even said to the young Horowitz "you play the piece [the 3rd concerto] better than I do." We can listen to the old Horowitz recording with Alfred Coates and hear for ourselves. But Horowitz "gets" the piece and the composer; for all his own reputation as a fiery virtuoso, he doesn't confuse passion with brutality. Rachmaninoff is never, never brutal, exaggerated, or heavy-handed.

The Argerich/Chailly was much hyped and is very popular. It's interesting to look at the numerous customer reviews on Amazon; dissenters are in the minority, but among them are musicians who know the music from the inside. I think it's significant that apart from his third concerto and his suites for two pianos, Argerich has avoided Rach's music.


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> Thanks, I do prefer a more relaxed approach.


Relaxed? I would say the last thing the Rach 3 needs is relaxation. Note that Rach's own performance is pretty fast.

If you really want to hit the speed gun try Horowitz / Barbirolli live. Unbelievable!


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Argerich did record it twice. It might be interesting to compare them. Your comment about "leaving herself nowhere to go" is, I suspect, spot on. She's a fantastic musician and player, and her recordings of Romantic concertos tend to be my favorites or among my top few (Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev). But her view of Rach's third replaces the Aristocrat of Old Russia with a Bolshevik revolutionary. Visceral, yes, but I don't visualize the man himself as I listen.
> 
> I'm sure Rachmaninoff didn't expect all performances of his music to be like his own; he even said to the young Horowitz "you play the piece [the 3rd concerto] better than I do." We can listen to the old Horowitz recording with Alfred Coates and hear for ourselves. But Horowitz "gets" the piece and the composer; for all his own reputation as a fiery virtuoso, he doesn't confuse passion with brutality. Rachmaninoff is never, never brutal, exaggerated, or heavy-handed.
> 
> The Argerich/Chailly was much hyped and is very popular. It's interesting to look at the numerous customer reviews on Amazon; dissenters are in the minority, but among them are musicians who know the music from the inside. I think it's significant that apart from his third concerto and his suites for two pianos, Argerich has avoided Rach's music.


The Argerich version was very much hyped as it is a tremendous performance, with fantastic virtuosity. One of the greatest ever on disc. I just can't see how "her view of Rach's third replaces the Aristocrat of Old Russia with a Bolshevik revolutionary" - I mean where does that come from? That is a completely subjective opinion. Horowitz / Barbirolli is even quicker than Argerich, btw. 
And don't forget Horowitz only played the no 3 of the concertos.

One point t- did Argerich record the Rach 3 twice? I have no record of a second one.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Argerich did record it twice. It might be interesting to compare them. Your comment about "leaving herself nowhere to go" is, I suspect, spot on. She's a fantastic musician and player, and her recordings of Romantic concertos tend to be my favorites or among my top few (Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev). But her view of Rach's third replaces the Aristocrat of Old Russia with a Bolshevik revolutionary. Visceral, yes, but I don't visualize the man himself as I listen.
> 
> I'm sure Rachmaninoff didn't expect all performances of his music to be like his own; he even said to the young Horowitz "you play the piece [the 3rd concerto] better than I do." We can listen to the old Horowitz recording with Alfred Coates and hear for ourselves. But Horowitz "gets" the piece and the composer; for all his own reputation as a fiery virtuoso, he doesn't confuse passion with brutality. Rachmaninoff is never, never brutal, exaggerated, or heavy-handed.
> The Argerich/Chailly was much hyped and is very popular. It's interesting to look at the numerous customer reviews on Amazon; dissenters are in the minority, but among them are musicians who know the music from the inside. I think it's significant that apart from his third concerto and his suites for two pianos, Argerich has avoided Rach's music.


I'm sorry.

I really did laugh out loud reading that- as if ever a supple, light-toned lioness and gazelle like Martha Argerich could ever sound brutal, Bolshevik, and hyperbolic in this or any other multiverse.

Is it really true that all Priests of the Temple "who know the music from the inside" would shamelessly deride Argerich as you do?

You're charming, Woodduck- and I _love _you.

But tell the truth and shame the Devil.

_;D_


----------



## Albert7

DavidA said:


> Relaxed? I would say the last thing the Rach 3 needs is relaxation. Note that Rach's own performance is pretty fast.
> 
> If you really want to hit the speed gun try Horowitz / Barbirolli live. Unbelievable!


Never liked the Horowitz Rach that much. Too fast for me. It is not the wild east.


----------



## Itullian

DavidA said:


> Relaxed? I would say the last thing the Rach 3 needs is relaxation. Note that Rach's own performance is pretty fast.
> 
> If you really want to hit the speed gun try Horowitz / Barbirolli live. Unbelievable!


Yes, relaxed as compared to speedy. I don't like rushed music and I'm not a Martha fan.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> The Argerich version was very much hyped as it is a tremendous performance, with fantastic virtuosity. One of the greatest ever on disc. I just can't see how "her view of Rach's third replaces the Aristocrat of Old Russia with a Bolshevik revolutionary" - I mean where does that come from? *That is a completely subjective opinion.* Horowitz / Barbirolli is even quicker than Argerich, btw.
> And don't forget Horowitz only played the no 3 of the concertos.
> 
> One point t- did Argerich record the Rach 3 twice? I have no record of a second one.


And _your_ opinions are - what, _objective?_

On the objective side, we have Rachmaninoff's view of his own music. It is vastly different from Argerich's. As a great composer and an unsurpassed pianist who lived with himself and played his own music all his life, he can probably be trusted to bring us closest to the essence of who he is. That essence comes through to me with clarity and eloquence, and I'm immensely grateful for it. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

Ukko said he thinks he has another recording under Abbado. But I wonder if he and I are both thinking of the Prokofiev 3rd, which she did record more than once.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> I'm sorry.
> 
> I really did laugh out loud reading that- as if ever a supple, *light-toned *lioness and *gazelle* like Martha Argerich could ever sound brutal, Bolshevik, and hyperbolic in this or any other multiverse.
> 
> Is it really true that all Priests of the Temple "who know the music from the inside" would *shamelessly deride* Argerich as you do?
> 
> You're charming, Woodduck- and I _love _you.
> 
> But tell the truth and shame the Devil.
> 
> _;D_


I am not alone in finding Argerich excessively fierce and driven at times. It is probably the most frequent criticism of her. To say that my pointing that out constitutes "shameless derision", particularly where there are easy comparisons at hand - and with the composer himself, no less - is the only hyperbole here.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> And _your_ opinions are - what, _objective?_
> 
> On the objective side, we have Rachmaninoff's view of his own music. It is vastly different from Argerich's. As a great composer and an unsurpassed pianist who lived with himself and played his own music all his life, he can probably be trusted to bring us closest to the essence of who he is. That essence comes through to me with clarity and eloquence, and I'm immensely grateful for it. You don't have to like it, but there it is.
> 
> Ukko said he thinks he has another recording under Abbado. But I wonder if he and I are both thinking of the Prokofiev 3rd, which she did record more than once.


On the objective side, we have Rachmaninov's _'own interpretation _of his own music.'

He realized that there were other roseate ridges besides his own- acknowledging Horowitz's style just as much as his own.

- Or am I just blonde and not a Priest of the Temple?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I am not alone in finding Argerich excessively fierce an driven at times. It is probably the most frequent criticism of her. To say that my pointing that out constitutes "shameless derision", particularly where there are easy comparisons at hand - and with the composer himself, no less - is the only hyperbole here.


Maybe.

I _am _a drama queen- and Martha's my Girl. You are correct.

But you do overstate your _argumentum ad baculum _fallacy as well.

That you're a fabulous pianist with even more fabulous taste I have no doubt.

But you're not the only one.

There's others with talent and taste who'd disagree with your sweeping assessment of what exactly the Aristotelian 'essence' of Rachmaninov is.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> On the objective side, we have Rachmaninov's _'own interpretation _of his own music.'
> 
> He realized that there were other roseate ridges besides his own- acknowledging Horowitz's style just as much as his own.
> 
> - Or am I just blonde and not a Priest of the Temple?


These things are almost always a question of degree. How far can we diverge from Rach's own view and still say we're doing the music justice? I welcome all interpretations which tell us something interesting about music. But if a composer has the technical capability of performing his own music, I will, without a compelling reason not to, take what he has to say about his own music and his personal sensibility as having considerable authority. Of course he wouldn't, and didn't, insist that others play exactly as he does. Neither would I. But there is an essential quality about Rach that Argerich, in her characteristic effort to rip the sky open, tramples. If others don't care about that quality, or don't perceive it, they're welcome to her.


----------



## hpowders

Forget boxed sets. Get Cliburn for Rach 3 and Rubinstein for Rach 2.


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> Yes, relaxed as compared to speedy. I don't like rushed music and I'm not a Martha fan.











Not a Marta fan? What's the matter with you?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> These things are almost always a question of degree. How far can we diverge from Rach's own view and still say we're doing the music justice? I welcome all interpretations which tell us something interesting about music. But if a composer has the technical capability of performing his own music, I will, without a compelling reason not to, take what he has to say about his own music and his personal sensibility as having considerable authority. Of course he wouldn't, and didn't, insist that others play exactly as he does. Neither would I. But there is an essential quality about Rach that Argerich, in her characteristic effort to rip the sky open, tramples. If others don't care about that quality, or don't perceive it, they're welcome to her.


If only it were 'A is A' true.

_You_ may hear Argerich that way; but then, equally true, I hear Rachmaninov's own endeavors as being comparatively _placid_.

I like the lioness' den- but its a gazelle's den too.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> And _your_ opinions are - what, _objective?_
> 
> On the objective side, we have Rachmaninoff's view of his own music. It is vastly different from Argerich's. As a great composer and an unsurpassed pianist who lived with himself and played his own music all his life, he can probably be trusted to bring us closest to the essence of who he is. That essence comes through to me with clarity and eloquence, and I'm immensely grateful for it. You don't have to like it, but there it is.
> 
> Ukko said he thinks he has another recording under Abbado. But I wonder if he and I are both thinking of the Prokofiev 3rd, which she did record more than once.


But you said: "I'm sure Rachmaninoff didn't expect all performances of his music to be like his own" Then you start being, you say, 'objective'? And why imply I don't like Rach's own performance? I never said that! All interpretation is subjective given certain guidelines. I don't mind you not liking Marta's but why on earth imply you are being objective about it?

BTW Marta has no Rach 3 under Abbado as far as I know. It was the Tchaikovsky 1


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> But you said: "I'm sure Rachmaninoff didn't expect all performances of his music to be like his own" Then you start being, you say, 'objective'? And why imply I don't like Rach's own performance? I never said that! All interpretation is subjective given certain guidelines. I don't mind you not liking Marta's but why on earth imply you are being objective about it?
> BTW Marta has no Rach 3 under Abbado as far as I know. It was the Tchaikovsky 1


Yeah, but I _do mind _that Woodduck doesn't like it.

I want to share the exhilaration with him._ ;D_


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yeah, but I _do mind _that Woodduck doesn't like it.
> 
> I want to share the exhilaration with him._ ;D_


Oh no! He'll label you as a Bolshevick Revolutionary!


----------



## Woodduck

Well. Folks, if y'all just _adore_ Martha here, I'm pleased as punch for y'all.

I make no claim that my preferences, solely because they are mine, have "objective" validity. I say only: "There's Rachmaninoff presenting himself, being himself. Pay attention. He doesn't care what we think, but he'd like us to listen carefully to what he does. Listen carefully enough and you may come to know him better."

Interestingly, Stephen Hough, in preparation for his set of the concertos, made an intensive study of Rach's recordings and had much to say on the subject. Just in case anyone cares.


----------



## Pip

I must also express my distaste for Martha's whirlwind performance - great pianism, but it is not Rachmaninov.
I have a great deal of admiration for her but for the real Rachmaninov I turn to others.
I have a documentary in which Jorge Bolet talks a great deal about Rachmaninov, he knew him and saw him perform.
His interpretation of the Third is exceptional, not the Decca commercial recording, but the 1983 live performance from the Usher Hall in Edinburgh with the BBC SSO conducted by Bryden Thomson is superb. There is also a Palexa CD of him performing it live in Indiana in the 70s that is let down by the local orchestra.
Lastly there is a live performance from Tokyo with the NHK Symphony orchestra conducted by David Atherton - wonderful.
Also very impressive is Volodos in a superb live performance under Levine.
As for the others....
For no 2, Weissenberg with Karajan is superb, Askenazy and Previn and for no 4 - Michelangeli!

For the complete set - Earl Wild and Horenstein and Rachmaninov himself.
Wild was another of those great pianists around at the time Rachmaninov was playing and has a lot to say.
A very satisfying interpreter - So to sum up.....
Earl Wild - Jorge Bolet - Michelangeli and (who cares about the sound) - the man himself.


----------



## Ukko

Woodduck said:


> And _your_ opinions are - what, _objective?_
> 
> On the objective side, we have Rachmaninoff's view of his own music. It is vastly different from Argerich's. As a great composer and an unsurpassed pianist who lived with himself and played his own music all his life, he can probably be trusted to bring us closest to the essence of who he is. That essence comes through to me with clarity and eloquence, and I'm immensely grateful for it. You don't have to like it, but there it is.
> 
> Ukko said he thinks he has another recording under Abbado. But I wonder if he and I are both thinking of the Prokofiev 3rd, which she did record more than once.


I suspect that I am the victim of a recurring confusion, repeatedly replacing Chailly in my mind with Abbado. I have no idea how it started. I scoured amazon.com for A&A, with no hits. I also searched my Rachmaninoff shelf - and didn't even find my copy of the Chailly.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Put me down for another vote for the Earl.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Pip said:


> I must also express my distaste for Martha's whirlwind performance - great pianism, but it is not Rachmaninov.
> I have a great deal of admiration for her but for the real Rachmaninov I turn to others.
> I have a documentary in which Jorge Bolet talks a great deal about Rachmaninov, he knew him and saw him perform.
> His interpretation of the Third is exceptional, not the Decca commercial recording, but the 1983 live performance from the Usher Hall in Edinburgh with the BBC SSO conducted by Bryden Thomson is superb. There is also a Palexa CD of him performing it live in Indiana in the 70s that is let down by the local orchestra.
> Lastly there is a live performance from Tokyo with the NHK Symphony orchestra conducted by David Atherton - wonderful.
> Also very impressive is Volodos in a superb live performance under Levine.
> As for the others....
> For no 2, Weissenberg with Karajan is superb, Askenazy and Previn and for no 4 - Michelangeli!
> 
> For the complete set - Earl Wild and Horenstein and Rachmaninov himself.
> Wild was another of those great pianists around at the time Rachmaninov was playing and has a lot to say.
> A very satisfying interpreter - So to sum up.....
> Earl Wild - Jorge Bolet - Michelangeli and (who cares about the sound) - the man himself.


How could I_ forget_ the _Volodos_?!- yes, that's artistry of a high order- no doubt.

(But I still incline to Martha overall. _;D_)


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Well. Folks, if y'all just _adore_ Martha here, I'm pleased as punch for y'all.
> 
> I make no claim that my preferences, solely because they are mine, have "objective" validity. I say only: "There's Rachmaninoff presenting himself, being himself. Pay attention. He doesn't care what we think, but he'd like us to listen carefully to what he does. Listen carefully enough and you may come to know him better."
> 
> Interestingly, Stephen Hough, in preparation for his set of the concertos, made an intensive study of Rach's recordings and had much to say on the subject. Just in case anyone cares.


Yes, I've heard them- and he should have made and intensive study of Argerich or Volodos instead.


----------



## Itullian

WOW, What a thread :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yes, I've heard them- and he should have made and intensive study of Argerich or Volodos instead.


Silly girl. You don't "study" Martha. You go to the basement or to the room nearest the center of your house, crouch down, and cover your head; or, if you're on the road, you pull over, get out of the car, find the lowest spot of ground, lie flat on your stomach, and hope that a flying cow does not drop on you.


----------



## Albert7

DavidA said:


> View attachment 65283
> 
> 
> Not a Marta fan? What's the matter with you?


It is possible. Some people can't handle an smart and beautiful lady at the same time LOL .


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Silly girl. You don't "study" Martha. You go to the basement or to the room nearest the center of your house, crouch down, and cover your head; or, if you're on the road, you pull over, get out of the car, find the lowest spot of ground, lie flat on your stomach, and hope that a flying cow does not drop on you.


Bovine intervention unnecessary. Martha milks the music for all its worth.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> It is possible. Some people can't handle an smart and beautiful lady at the same time LOL .


Oh its not that. Woodduck has superb taste in women. I just wish that his Garbo was up to his Argerich.


----------



## Albert7

Marschallin Blair said:


> Bovine intervention unnecessary. Martha milks the music for all its worth.




Martha, sushi, and Helene... a perfect trio for the evening.


----------



## Itullian

DavidA said:


> View attachment 65283
> 
> 
> Not a Marta fan? What's the matter with you?


My taste runs more to Pires


----------



## Albert7

Itullian said:


> My taste runs more to Pires


Or you could do both with Martha and Maria


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Interestingly, Stephen Hough, in preparation for his set of the concertos, made an intensive study of Rach's recordings and had much to say on the subject. Just in case anyone cares.


Yes I have Hough's set. But his no 3 can't hold a candle to Argerich! Nor is it as good as Janis, Horowitz, Volodos or Wild. Not that it's bad - it's not as good as them. And don't forget Ashkenazy.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Well. Folks, if y'all just _adore_ Martha here, I'm pleased as punch for y'all.
> 
> I make no claim that my preferences, solely because they are mine, have "objective" validity. I say only: "There's Rachmaninoff presenting himself, being himself. Pay attention. He doesn't care what we think, but he'd like us to listen carefully to what he does. Listen carefully enough and you may come to know him better."
> 
> Interestingly, Stephen Hough, in preparation for his set of the concertos, made an intensive study of Rach's recordings and had much to say on the subject. Just in case anyone cares.


Richter's no 2 is not at all like Rachmaninov's. Does that disqualify that incredible performance?


----------



## Albert7

Richter's version is very awesome. I really enjoyed it quite a bit.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Richter's no 2 is not at all like Rachmaninov's. Does that disqualify that incredible performance?


"Disqualify"? You just made that up, didn't you?

A musical score is, as every musician - composer or performer - knows, only a set of instructions as to what the music it represent is intended to sound like. It must be deciphered and translated into sound by someone who must make innumerable suppositions about what the composer intends. In Rachmaninoff we have a composer supremely capable of performing his own music. He was a pianist of unsurpassed skill who not only knew how he wanted his music to sound but had the ability to make it sound that way. His performances can therefore be considered essential to our understanding of his intentions for his own works. Performances that differ greatly from his may shed some interesting light on his music but do not fully represent his intentions. We may enjoy them, and he certainly would not have prevented them even if he could have; as a musician, he certainly understood that each performer must confront and interpret music in her own way. It is therefore absurd to speak of a performance by a major artist such as Argerich or Richter as "disqualified." What we _may_ speak of it as, however, is a departure from the sensibility and vision of the composer. How great a departure it is, only the composer could tell us. But our personal taste should not obscure for us, and does not render irrelevant, the truth that Rachmaninoff's playing of his music represents it, and in some important way represents _him_, more truly than Argerich's or Richter's.

Alternatives to the composer's way with his own music have their place, of course. They can be fascinating and enjoyable for their own peculiarities. I wouldn't want to have missed out on Furtwangler's performances of Beethoven's Ninth. Does the incredibly slow tempo in the third movement represent Beethoven's intentions? Absolutely not. This doesn't "disqualify" for us (whatever that means) Furtwangler's performance, which achieves something impressive in its own way. But I can still admit that it's as much Furtwangler as it is Beethoven. And if Ludwig should come back from the dead and hear it he would probably pick up the nearest plate of sauerbraten and throw it at the wall, accompanied by a few unprintable German words.

I'm not throwing plates of food here. I'm just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> "Disqualify"? You just made that up, didn't you?
> 
> A musical score is, as every musician - composer or performer - knows, only a set of instructions as to what the music it represent is intended to sound like. It must be deciphered and translated into sound by someone who must make innumerable suppositions about what the composer intends. In Rachmaninoff we have a composer supremely capable of performing his own music. He was a pianist of unsurpassed skill who not only knew how he wanted his music to sound but had the ability to make it sound that way. His performances can therefore be considered essential to our understanding of his intentions for his own works. Performances that differ greatly from his may shed some interesting light on his music but do not fully represent his intentions. We may enjoy them, and he certainly would not have prevented them even if he could have; as a musician, he certainly understood that each performer must confront and interpret music in her own way. It is therefore absurd to speak of a performance by a major artist such as Argerich or Richter as "disqualified." What we _may_ speak of it as, however, is a departure from the sensibility and vision of the composer. How great a departure it is, only the composer could tell us. But our personal taste should not obscure for us, and does not render irrelevant, the truth that Rachmaninoff's playing of his music represents it, and in some important way represents _him_, more truly than Argerich's or Richter's.
> 
> Alternatives to the composer's way with his own music have their place, of course. They can be fascinating and enjoyable for their own peculiarities. I wouldn't want to have missed out on Furtwangler's performances of Beethoven's Ninth. Does the incredibly slow tempo in the third movement represent Beethoven's intentions? Absolutely not. This doesn't "disqualify" for us (whatever that means) Furtwangler's performance, which achieves something impressive in its own way. But I can still admit that it's as much Furtwangler as it is Beethoven. And if Ludwig should come back from the dead and hear it he would probably pick up the nearest plate of sauerbraten and throw it at the wall, accompanied by a few unprintable German words.
> 
> I'm not throwing plates of food here. I'm just pointing out the obvious.


What do you mean, made it up? Of course I did as I wrote it. I thought that would have been obvious. I simply asked the question. The problem is you are come across as self-contradiction, one time implying Rach's way of performing is the only way. Then saying something else. Of course - as I said if you read my post - Rach's own performances are a unique historical document in spite of the very dated recording. However, I have no doubt that Rach being a composer he would have been delighted at the different ways people have of interpreting his music. he would have loved Argerich, Volodos et al. In fact if as pianist himself he would have loved them. Don't forget Horowitz's Rach 3 is quite different to the composer's and Rach loved it. It's critics who tend to be more narrow minded about things like that. For example, when I started collecting records, at one time the critics thought that Klemperer's way with Beethoven was the standard. Critical opinion has now shifted as it does with musical fashion. We must indeed learn the obvious - it is to me at any way - that there is more than one way of interpreting great music.


----------



## DavidA

albertfallickwang said:


> Richter's version is very awesome. I really enjoyed it quite a bit.


Frankly anyone is isn't awed by it has a problem!


----------



## Albert7

DavidA said:


> Frankly anyone is isn't awed by it has a problem!


Indeed I agree. I am puzzled by those people who don't enjoy anything played by Richter honestly. That guy was a true master.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> "Disqualify"? You just made that up, didn't you?
> 
> A musical score is, as every musician - composer or performer - knows, only a set of instructions as to what the music it represent is intended to sound like. It must be deciphered and translated into sound by someone who must make innumerable suppositions about what the composer intends. In Rachmaninoff we have a composer supremely capable of performing his own music. He was a pianist of unsurpassed skill who not only knew how he wanted his music to sound but had the ability to make it sound that way. His performances can therefore be considered essential to our understanding of his intentions for his own works. Performances that differ greatly from his may shed some interesting light on his music but do not fully represent his intentions. We may enjoy them, and he certainly would not have prevented them even if he could have; as a musician, he certainly understood that each performer must confront and interpret music in her own way. It is therefore absurd to speak of a performance by a major artist such as Argerich or Richter as "disqualified." What we _may_ speak of it as, however, is a departure from the sensibility and vision of the composer. How great a departure it is, only the composer could tell us. But our personal taste should not obscure for us, and does not render irrelevant, the truth that Rachmaninoff's playing of his music represents it, and in some important way represents _him_, more truly than Argerich's or Richter's.
> 
> Alternatives to the composer's way with his own music have their place, of course. They can be fascinating and enjoyable for their own peculiarities. I wouldn't want to have missed out on Furtwangler's performances of Beethoven's Ninth. Does the incredibly slow tempo in the third movement represent Beethoven's intentions? Absolutely not. This doesn't "disqualify" for us (whatever that means) Furtwangler's performance, which achieves something impressive in its own way. But I can still admit that it's as much Furtwangler as it is Beethoven. And if Ludwig should come back from the dead and hear it he would probably pick up the nearest plate of sauerbraten and throw it at the wall, accompanied by a few unprintable German words.
> 
> I'm not throwing plates of food here. I'm just pointing out the obvious.


That's all to the good and tautologically fine- but I always admire people who not only can hit targets others can't_ reach_, but also the ones others can't even '_see_' as well.

Argerich's firebranding Rachmaninov's _Third_ is one example- and Stokowski's own orchestration and visceral treatment of Bach's _Toccata and Fugue in D Minor _ from 1927 with the Philadelphia Orchestra is but another.

Though the incandescence of suchlike performances may not represent the _beaux ideal_ for either Rachmaninov or Bach as originally conceived, they are still works of refurbished genius.

- To me at any rate. _;D_


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Frankly anyone is isn't awed by it has a problem!


No, they do not have a problem. They are merely not awed. I dare say that many, many people are not awed. Those people do not have "problems."

Good grief. Just the other day someone on another thread expressed the thought that to dislike the music of Mahler seemed "anti-human." I presume that is also some kind of "problem."

It really is more appropriate, and makes one look less absurd - in case one cares how one looks - to give one's opinions of music without assuming there is something wrong with people merely because they disagree with them.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> That's all to the good and tautologically fine- but *I always admire people who not only can hit targets others can't reach, but also the ones others can't even 'see'* as well.
> 
> Argerich's firebranding Rachmaninov's _Third_ is one example- and Stokowski's own orchestration and visceral treatment of Bach's _Toccata and Fugue in D Minor _ from 1927 with the Philadelphia Orchestra is but another.
> 
> Though the incandescence of suchlike performances may not represent the _beaux ideal_ for either Rachmaninov or Bach as originally conceived, they are still works of refurbished genius.
> 
> - To me at any rate. _;D_


Very well put. I don't disagree - and I know that you, at least, will understand that in saying that I'm not contradicting anything I've said elsewhere.

I would only remark that Argerich can firebrand anything. It's her brand. She probably even branded that flying cow.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> No, they do not have a problem. They are merely not awed. I dare say that many, many people are not awed. Those people do not have "problems."
> 
> Good grief. Just the other day someone on another thread expressed the thought that to dislike the music of Mahler seemed "anti-human." I presume that is also some kind of "problem."
> 
> It really is more appropriate, and makes one look less absurd - in case one cares how one looks - to give one's opinions of music without assuming there is something wrong with people merely because they disagree with them.


Sorry, but taking it for granted that you know something about music, if you're not awed at least by the sheer virtuosity of Richter's onslaught on the last movement of Rach 2, then I think y0u have some sort of a problem - a problem in non-appreciation of awesomely gifted pianism. Now you don't have to like it - just be awed by it!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but taking it for granted that you know something about music, if you're not awed at least by the sheer virtuosity of Richter's onslaught on the last movement of Rach 2, then I think y0u have some sort of a problem - a problem in non-appreciation of awesomely gifted pianism. Now you don't have to like it - just be awed by it!


He does, David. He does.

He's a fine pianist, himself- and in _m_y opinion, judicious to a fault.

He just has a vision of timeless elegance, and very few shining exemplars of higher pianism live up to it.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> He does, David. He does.
> 
> He's a fine pianist, himself- and in _m_y opinion, judicious to a fault.
> 
> He just has a vision of timeless elegance, and very few shining exemplars of higher pianism live up to it.




There's a place for timeless elegance. But also one for fire eating virtuosity! Listen to Horowitz / Barbirolli 1941 live. Some like it hot!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but taking it for granted that you know something about music, if you're not awed at least by the sheer virtuosity of Richter's onslaught on the last movement of Rach 2, then I think y0u have some sort of a problem - a problem in non-appreciation of awesomely gifted pianism. Now you don't have to like it - just be awed by it!


"Doc, I have a problem. I listen to piano music sometimes and, well, I just can't help feeling that something isn't quite right. It's like I should be... I don't know, having some feelings or something that... well, I'm just not quite...Huh. You know what I'm tryin' ta say, doc?"

"Heh heh! Don't worry, Wood. It's nothing to worry about. It's what we call "Non-Appreciation of Awesomely Gifted Pianism."

"Wow. I mean... Just wow! I never heard of that."

"It was just discovered by a scientist in England.'

"Well...OK. So I shouldn't worry? Did that scientist discover a cure for it?"

"Richter."

"Huh?"

"Richter. Sviatoslav Richter. You listen to recordings of Sviatoslav Richter. Put on one CD every three hours for four days, and you'll find your appreciation level has completely changed."

"Gosh. Any particular recordings?"

"The Rachmaninoff Second Piano Concerto works best. Third movement. You won't believe it. It'll knock you right out. You'll be in awe."

"Awe?"

"Awe."

"Well that's - that's awesome, doc!"

"Heh heh! Yup. Awesome."

"I don't know how to thank you, doc. I think you're pretty awesome too."

"Of course you do. Anybody who doesn't think so must _really_ have a problem."


----------



## Becca

DavidA said:


> Frankly anyone is isn't awed by it has a problem!


Peace - I think that this thread is getting a bit out of hand. We all listen differently, have different things that impact us positively or negatively and so colour our opinions. Just because one person's view is not the same as another's does not invalidate either of them. Isn't that what makes classical music so interesting?


----------



## Albert7

I need to see if Lang Lang ever recorded these complete or not.


----------



## Vaneyes

1. Janis/Kondrashin
2. Ashkenazy/Previn
3. Argerich/Chailly
4. Michelangeli/Gracis

Box - Ashkenazy/Previn:tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I need to see if Lang Lang ever recorded these complete or not.

For what possible reason?


----------



## Albert7

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I need to see if Lang Lang ever recorded these complete or not.
> 
> For what possible reason?


Still need to research I'm curious to hear an Asian interpretation of these Russian works.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> Still need to research I'm curious to hear an Asian interpretation of these Russian works.


What does race have to do with merit?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> There's a place for timeless elegance. But also one for fire eating virtuosity! Listen to Horowitz / Barbirolli 1941 live. Some like it hot!


Well, that's me for sure. . . but in 'Martha' and not 'Vladimir' mode. 
_
;D_


----------



## Albert7

Marschallin Blair said:


> What does race have to do with merit?


For some people, it's the reason that many people judge Lang Lang and Yuja Wang as examples of that slick Asian technical wizardry.

Cultural cultural.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

albertfallickwang said:


> For some people, it's the reason that many people judge Lang Lang and Yuja Wang as examples of that slick Asian technical wizardry.
> 
> Cultural cultural.


'Slick' is an individual attribute and not a cultural accretion.


----------



## Albert7

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'Slick' is an individual attribute and not a cultural accretion.


maybe but enough slickness can make a country go out of place in tetonics.


----------



## KenOC

albertfallickwang said:


> Still need to research I'm curious to hear an Asian interpretation of these Russian works.


So if you didn't now it was Yuja Wang, you could still tell it was an Asian performer? C'mon now!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> So if you didn't now it was Yuja Wang, you could still tell it was an Asian performer? C'mon now!


<. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >

-blank out-

_Still _no response?

I suppose the race horse went lame early- being the first out of its gait.


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> So if you didn't now it was Yuja Wang, you could still tell it was an Asian performer? C'mon now!


If it were a video performance, I am pretty sure that I could ascertain the Asian-anality of the performance.


----------



## Becca

albertfallickwang said:


> maybe but enough slickness can make a country go out of place in tetonics.


and just what does that mean?? (btw, it's 'tectonics')


----------



## Albert7

Becca said:


> and just what does that mean?? (btw, it's 'tectonics')


Ooops my keyboard skills are terribly lacking. It means that if Asian players are stereotyped as being slick then the whole country musicians could be seen the same as such.


----------



## DavidA

To brighten our day, here is Yuja pkaying the Rach 3


----------



## ShropshireMoose

I have read through this thread with a great deal of interest, what I find quite astonishing is that there has not been a single mention of the recordings of Benno Moiseiwitsch, the pianist that Rachmaninoff considered to be his spiritual heir. It is, to my mind, one of the great tragedies of recording history that he never recorded the 3rd Concerto. However, he did record the 1st Concerto, and make two recordings apiece of the 2nd Concerto and the Paganini Rhapsody. The version of the latter with the Philharmonia Orchestra/Hugo Rignold has always seemed to me to be by far the wittiest and most enjoyable performance of this piece that has ever been recorded. Either of his performances of the 2nd Concerto are thoroughly recommendable, the 1937 with the London Philharmonic Orchestra/Walter Goehr is a more lithe reading than the 1954 with Rignold and the Philharmonia, but I wouldn't be without either of them. Any of the recordings Moiseiwitsch made of the solo works are worth hearing too, but I must mention, lest any of ye are unaware of it, his 1939 recording of Rachmaninoff's transcription Mendelssohn's Scherzo from "A Midsummer Night's Dream", it's on youtube and is four minutes of transcendental pianism that no serious lover of the piano should fail to hear. It has NEVER been equalled, and I suspect that it never will be.
With regard to other recordings of the Rachmaninoff Concertos, here's my choices:

No.1: Moura Lympany/Philharmonia Orchestra/Nicolai Malko
Byron Janis/Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra/Kyril Kondrashin

No.2: Byron Janis/Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra/Antal Dorati
Gina Bachauer/Orchestre Philharmonique de Strasbourg/Alain Lombard

No.3: Vladimir Horowitz/New York Philharmonic Orchestra/John Barbirolli
Vladimir Horowitz/New York Philharmonic Orchestra/Eugene Ormandy
Martha Argerich/RSO Berlin/Riccardo Chailly
Byron Janis/London Symphony Orchestra/Antal Dorati
Vladimir Ashkenazy/London Symphony Orchestra/Anatole Fistoulari

No.4: Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli/Philharmonia Orchestra/Ettore Gracis
Yevgeny Sudbin/North Carolina Symphony Orchestra/Grant Llewellyn

Rhapsody On A Theme of Paganini: Cyril Smith/Philharmonia Orchestra/Sir Malcolm Sargent
Leon Fleisher/Cleveland Orchestra/George Szell

Complete recording: Earl Wild/Royal Philharmonic Orchestra/Jascha Horenstein

I feel that Rachmaninoff's own recordings and those by Benno Moiseiwitsch should be mandatory to any self respecting collection of these works, and I personally would never want to be without them.


----------



## Albert7

DavidA said:


> To brighten our day, here is Yuja pkaying the Rach 3


Thanks and much appreciated to see this posted


----------



## Albert7

Here you go folks and enjoy this:


----------



## Konsgaard

I am obsessed with the Rachmaninov piano concertos, for this reason alone I own a lot of box sets and individual recordings. In my opinion the best overall box set is that of Valentina Lisitsa on Decca. Norman Lebrecht, when reviewing the set, said this is the most compelling set to appear since the Ashkenazy/Previn and I have to agree (finding it better than Ashkenazy/Previn). Here's the review: http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/revi...valentina-lisitsa-rachmaninov-piano-concertos

Lisitsa's playing is full of virtuosity and lyricism, and the orchestral contribution does full justice to these concertos.

Second best box set, in my opinion, is the Wild set in excellent remastered 24bit sound on Chandos. The only reason this is not first on my list is the fact that there are some cuts in the 3rd concerto.

Now, Ashkenazy... I never considered this a top choice, but if I had to choose between Ashkenazy/Previn and Ashkenazy/Haitink, I would choose the latter, mainly because of Haitink's superior orchestral support (lush strings, blazing horns)... Mind you, the legendary Ashkenazy/Previn set has been re-released by Decca in 24bit remastering using the original tapes and I can say the remastering job that has been done is excellent.

Hough/Litton is amazing -I find Hough's technique, as amazing as it can get and breathtaking. However, his tone I think suits better the Saint-Saens concertos (he has too light a touch for me) and even though the dialogue between orchestra and piano is spot on, I find the orchestral tuttis underpowered possibly due to the recessed recorded sound.

As far as individual performances of each concerto are concerned, there are many I like, but I will only comment on the 2nd and 3rd concertos. For the 2nd, Richter of course on DG, the recent Lisitsa on Decca, Bronfman on Sony, and for pure poetry the underrated Zilberstein/Abbado on DG. For the 3rd concerto, Argerich is in a class of its own, even though I'd have preferred better recorded sound, revealing more from the orchestra. Volodos is a first class performance and recording and this is probably my overall favourite recording of this concerto. Another very fine recording not often mentioned is the Joseph Moog on Onyx, released a couple of years ago. Last but not least, Lisitsa again is uniformally excellent.

I haven't mentioned the legendary recordings by Rachmaninov himself or Horrowitz because I think they are, after all, essential listening.

So to sum up, for a box set, after having listened to many sets throughout the years, and bearing in mind that I love these concertos so much that I have been constantly comparing recordings, I think the Lisitsa on Decca is the best overall, without a single weak moment.


----------



## Albert7

I love these pieces too ... Very luxurious to me indeed.


----------



## rubysky

This is my current favorite rendition of the Rachmaninov Concerto No. 3:-

https://archive.org/details/RachmaninovPianoConcertoNo.3WithGrigorySokolovTortelierbbcSo

Grigory Sokolov with Yan Pascal Tortelier and BBC Philharmonic at The Proms 1995


----------



## DavidA

Konsgaard said:


> I am obsessed with the Rachmaninov piano concertos, for this reason alone I own a lot of box sets and individual recordings. In my opinion the best overall box set is that of Valentina Lisitsa on Decca. Norman Lebrecht, when reviewing the set, said this is the most compelling set to appear since the Ashkenazy/Previn and I have to agree (finding it better than Ashkenazy/Previn). Here's the review: http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/revi...valentina-lisitsa-rachmaninov-piano-concertos


I must confess that having Mr Lebrecht recommend a recording would make me treat it with a certain suspicion.


----------



## Albert7

Couldn't resist sharing with you guys another lovely movement from the 2nd:


----------



## pentaquine

I have to say Leif Ove Andsnes never disappoints me. He recorded a full cycle with BPO and LSO.


----------



## WJM

Ashkenazy & Haitink would be my top choice for the whole set, but I certainly wouldn't want to be without recordings by the composer himself. If nothing more, they are magnificent historical documents - and there is much more. Plus Horowitz/Reiner and Horowitz/Barbirolli for the 3rd concerto and Rubinstein for the Rhapsody.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I like Rachmaninoff's own recording of No.2.


----------



## hpowders

Cliburn for Rach 3. Rubinstein for Rach 2.

I don't care about the others.


----------



## pianississimo

Nikolai Lugansky is the best around now. Rachmaninov's own recordings are the best ever. I don't care much for Horowitz in these pieces. I find he whips too fast through some places, as if he were just a bit too pleased with himself. 
I like a more relaxed approach which builds up properly to the finale. Rachmaninov's music is all about building up to the big moment, and a good interpreter should understand that.
I like Lisista's version too but it doesn't have the sheer love in it that is in Lugansky's interpretations. I've heard him play No 3 quite a few times live and he obviously never tires of it, neither do I!!

http://www.amazon.com/Piano-Concertos-Nos-1-3/dp/B00008CLIV


----------



## AnotherSpin

Albert7 said:


> Best individual recording ever:
> 
> View attachment 65237


Fully agree! This is my all time favorite of 3d concerto.


----------



## AnotherSpin

Woodduck said:


> But her view of Rach's third replaces the Aristocrat of Old Russia with a Bolshevik revolutionary.


Marta Argerich's playing is filled with heartache almost physical by its intensity. Nobody else was able to convey composer's nostalgia on his forever lost homeland as she did.

If you want "Bolshevik" playing, look for recent one from Lisitsa - pushy and arrogant.


----------



## Larkenfield

Well, among the best, why not include Rachmaninoff himself playing his own concertos? His performances just might be a little more authentic than anyone else's. Some of his tremendous recordings have been restored with far better sound.


----------



## Ras

*For the first two my favorite recording is Zimerman with Ozawa on DGG.*







*For a complete set I like Horenstein with the RPO and the pianist Earl Wild on Chandos:*







*Gergiev with Matsuev in the 3rd will rock your boat.*







*The first recording of the 3rd I liked was Horowitz from 1978 with Ormandy on RCA*


----------



## howlingfantods

The Richter/Wislocki 2nd is so great, it ruined all other performances of the second for me.

For the 3rd, the Sokolov/Tortelier 1995 Proms performance just released commercially last year by DG is stupendous. He plays with incredible virtuosity, but it always feels very honest to the interpretation and not arbitrary or as a vehicle for showing off pianistic chops.

The closest thing I can come to a flaw is that his technical mastery is such that the performance almost sounds glib--if you like heroic struggles between pianist and instrument a la Argerich or Wild, this performance may not satisfy. Sokolov sounds like he's working no harder than when playing like a Chopin Nocturne or something, it's uncanny. But despite that general impression, Sokolov absolutely pummels his instrument, and a couple of notes go slightly out of tune by the end.


----------



## 13hm13

Not sure it's the best for 2/3 but my first SR purchase was...










Rachmaninov* - Yefim Bronfman, The Philharmonia, Esa-Pekka Salonen ‎- Piano Concertos Nos. 2 + 3
Label:Sony Classical ‎- SK 47183
Format: CD 
Country:US
Released:1992

... performance is not bad, but the recording is not the greatest (I prefer a more in-my-face sound). Have a listen:


----------



## 13hm13

Going thru some older hard-drives, I found that I do have Decca's 'Rachmaninoff -- The Four PCs' Ashkenazy/Previn/LSO. 
With PC 2, mvt 2, I can criticize the recording balance a bit ... some of those opening piano keys are drowned (or not miked loud enough). 
About the performance (judging by PC2, mvt. 2)... it's pretty good. But I'm expecting this slow mvt. to have some pace n' rhythm. And I'm not hearing much. Maybe the recent Anna Fedorova recording does this better


----------



## DarkAngel

ShropshireMoose said:


> I have read through this thread with a great deal of interest, what I find quite astonishing is that there has not been a single mention of the recordings of Benno Moiseiwitsch, the pianist that Rachmaninoff considered to be his spiritual heir. It is, to my mind, one of the great tragedies of recording history that he never recorded the 3rd Concerto. However, he did record the 1st Concerto, and make two recordings apiece of the 2nd Concerto and the Paganini Rhapsody. The version of the latter with the Philharmonia Orchestra/Hugo Rignold has always seemed to me to be by far the wittiest and most enjoyable performance of this piece that has ever been recorded. Either of his performances of the 2nd Concerto are thoroughly recommendable, the 1937 with the London Philharmonic Orchestra/Walter Goehr is a more lithe reading than the 1954 with Rignold and the Philharmonia, but I wouldn't be without either of them. Any of the recordings Moiseiwitsch made of the solo works are worth hearing too, but I must mention, lest any of ye are unaware of it, his 1939 recording of Rachmaninoff's transcription Mendelssohn's Scherzo from "A Midsummer Night's Dream", it's on youtube and is four minutes of transcendental pianism that no serious lover of the piano should fail to hear. It has NEVER been equalled, and I suspect that it never will be.
> With regard to other recordings of the Rachmaninoff Concertos, here's my choices:
> 
> No.1: Moura Lympany/Philharmonia Orchestra/Nicolai Malko
> Byron Janis/Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra/Kyril Kondrashin
> 
> No.2: Byron Janis/Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra/Antal Dorati
> Gina Bachauer/Orchestre Philharmonique de Strasbourg/Alain Lombard
> 
> No.3: Vladimir Horowitz/New York Philharmonic Orchestra/John Barbirolli
> Vladimir Horowitz/New York Philharmonic Orchestra/Eugene Ormandy
> Martha Argerich/RSO Berlin/Riccardo Chailly
> Byron Janis/London Symphony Orchestra/Antal Dorati
> Vladimir Ashkenazy/London Symphony Orchestra/Anatole Fistoulari
> 
> No.4: Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli/Philharmonia Orchestra/Ettore Gracis
> Yevgeny Sudbin/North Carolina Symphony Orchestra/Grant Llewellyn
> 
> Rhapsody On A Theme of Paganini: Cyril Smith/Philharmonia Orchestra/Sir Malcolm Sargent
> Leon Fleisher/Cleveland Orchestra/George Szell
> 
> Complete recording: Earl Wild/Royal Philharmonic Orchestra/Jascha Horenstein
> 
> *I feel that Rachmaninoff's own recordings and those by Benno Moiseiwitsch should be mandatory to any self respecting collection of these works, and I personally would never want to be without them.*


Mark Obert Thorn along with Andrew Rose of Pristine XR have done a new restoration (previously done for Naxos) of the famous composer's own performances of the 4 piano concertos & Pagnini Rhapsody, amazing sound results to say the least please check long sound sample from website......

https://www.pristineclassical.com/products/pasc544?source=f918f7c1-8d6b-4cfa-af40-294cd7f45ea0


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

My sole choice is Byron Janis with Antal Dorati and the London Symphony performing the Rach Third on Mercury. I've never heard any other version that tops it.


----------



## Josquin13

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Rachmaninov Piano Concerto 1-4 set by pianist Augustin Anievas, who is one of my favorite pianists in Rachmaninov's music, along with Horowitz, Rachmaninov, Moseiwitsch, Richter, Gilels, & L. Berman, & sometimes Pogorelich, Ashkenazy, Lympany, and Vasary.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I don't know the 1st very well, but my favorite Rach PC recordings are:

2 - Rachmaninoff/Stokowski
3 - Horowitz/Barbirolli
2 & 3 - Janis/Dorati
4 - Michelangeli/Gracis


----------



## Larkenfield

Josquin13 said:


> Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Rachmaninov Piano Concerto 1-4 set by pianist Augustin Anievas, who is one of my favorite pianists in Rachmaninov's music, along with Horowitz, Rachmaninov, Moseiwitsch, Richter, Gilels, & L. Berman, & sometimes Pogorelich, Ashkenazy, Lympany, and Vasary.


Nice to see Anievas mentioned. Wonderful pianist! I used to play his Rachmaninoff Preludes repeatedly.


----------



## Larkenfield

Many great sets have been mentioned, but I wouldn't want to miss out on Anna Fedorova's Rach 2nd-a terrific performance with over 20,329,531 well-deserved views. She's a real up and comer.


----------



## starthrower

I'm far from being a Rach afficionado, but I have the Jansons/Mikhail Rudy orchestral set, and a single concerto CD featuring Andre Watts.


----------



## radiodurans

For his 3rd, I really liked this one by Horowitz growing up. There are some cuts, acoustically it isn't the greatest, but the performance is magical.


----------



## gardibolt

The Pristine/Obert-Thorn rendition of Rachmaninoff's own recordings pretty much sweeps the field for me. Amazingly good sound quality for the period, and my god how the man could play.


----------



## Sparbet

Without a doubt Yefim Bronfman! Thanks


----------



## 444mil

kocsis for short cadenza. volodos/kissin for ossia cadenza.


----------



## 444mil

444mil said:


> kocsis for short cadenza. volodos/kissin for ossia cadenza.


ashkenazy/previn and gavrilov/muti are great too.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Haydn67 said:


> My sole choice is Byron Janis with Antal Dorati and the London Symphony performing the Rach Third on Mercury. I've never heard any other version that tops it.


That is one hell of a performance. Good call!

I started off with just the Ashkenazy/Previn set, And these still hold good as among the best I have heard. More recently I have been pretty darned impressed by Lugansky, Rudy, Sudbin too. And don't forget the wonderful No.4 Michelangeli recorded on EMI, eternally coupled with that stunning Ravel!

Am I allowed to confess to preferring Rachmaninov's Symphonies etc to these works, though....?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Nine pages and no mention of this one. Must be a dog.


----------



## Rogerx

^^^^^^^
To be fair Fritz, topic is old, that said, the Daniil Trifonov makes a very good impression.


----------



## michaelstewart

Rachmaninov is probably my all time favourite composer. I first heard his music when I was about 10 years old. My first exposure to the piano concertos was Byron Janis playing the Third Concerto with Antal Dorati. Still one of my favourite recordings. However, I’d like to give the Fourth Concerto a shout out here. I believe this is a hugely underrated work, and if you are among the many who often feel this is the weakest of all Rachmaninov’s concertos I urge you to seek out explore in its original version. It’s a real shame that Rachmaninov felt the need to revise this wonderful concertoas I feel that so much of its subtle beauty was lost in the revision. Sudbin, Ghendin and Lefevre have recorded this version. My favourite of these is Lefevre.


----------



## SixFootScowl

michaelstewart said:


> *Rachmaninov is probably my all time favourite composer. *I first heard his music when I was about 10 years old. My first exposure to the piano concertos was Byron Janis playing the Third Concerto with Antal Dorati. Still one of my favourite recordings. However, I'd like to give the Fourth Concerto a shout out here. I believe this is a hugely underrated work, and if you are among the many who often feel this is the weakest of all Rachmaninov's concertos I urge you to seek out explore in its original version. It's a real shame that Rachmaninov felt the need to revise this wonderful concertoas I feel that so much of its subtle beauty was lost in the revision. Sudbin, Ghendin and Lefevre have recorded this version. My favourite of these is Lefevre.


Awesome! Can't fault anyone for putting Rachmaninoff at the top of their list.


----------



## michaelstewart

Thanks. He fights top space with Mahler actually. Interesting that the world premiere of Third concerto was conducted by Mahler. I’d love to have been at that performance!


----------



## SixFootScowl

michaelstewart said:


> Thanks. He fights top space with Mahler actually. Interesting that the world premiere of Third concerto was conducted by Mahler. I'd love to have been at that performance!


It is interesting that when I first listened to Rachmaninoff's first symphony, it reminded me of Mahler.

My top symphonic composers (in no particular order) are Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Mahler, and Rachmaninoff.


----------



## JB Henson

Fritz Kobus said:


> Nine pages and no mention of this one. Must be a dog.


Pretty good recordings. Worth the 3 dollars I spent on them several years ago in that Vox Mega Box (since increased to 9.50 on Amazon)


----------



## flamencosketches

Woodduck said:


> Well. Folks, if y'all just _adore_ Martha here, I'm pleased as punch for y'all.
> 
> I make no claim that my preferences, solely because they are mine, have "objective" validity. I say only: "There's Rachmaninoff presenting himself, being himself. Pay attention. He doesn't care what we think, but he'd like us to listen carefully to what he does. Listen carefully enough and you may come to know him better."
> 
> Interestingly, Stephen Hough, in preparation for his set of the concertos, made an intensive study of Rach's recordings and had much to say on the subject. Just in case anyone cares.


I know this post is 5 years old, but do you have any more information on this? Where can I find what Hough had to say about Rachmaninov's recordings? Is it a video, an essay, or what? I'd love to familiarize myself with his commentary.


----------



## flamencosketches

I've just placed an order for the Ashkenazy/Previn/London Symphony set on Decca (for a total of $4.22, shipped, on eBay–I couldn't resist!)–but beyond that, lately, I have been hungry for new interpretations of Rachmaninov's great music. Somehow, contrary to what one might expect, I believe that these concerti reward a variety of interpretations. Rachmaninov's own performances will forever remain the best, the definitive, but that doesn't mean that a completely different interpretation can't be just as successful. Take for example the Richter/Wislocki/Warsaw recording of Concerto No.2. It's radically different than Rachmaninov's own–the Richter is slow, heavy, dark, passionate, almost Gothic, like an old castle, nothing like the poetic levity, the stratospheric heights, and the divine poetry of the Rachmaninov/Stokowski. And then you have the Cliburn/Reiner/Chicago, for example, lyrical, nostalgic, ever-flowing. And yet all three of them work. I won't get started on the Argerich Rach 3, which was the subject to fierce debate earlier in this thread, but I find it to be a great example of a unique interpretation that works, though a lesser artist than Martha could not have pulled it off. 

Anyway, beyond those I've mentioned, and my recent Ashkenazy order, there are others that interest me. Yefim Bronfman/Salonen/Philharmonia is one of them, which I heard as a result of my research into the Joyce Hatto scandal (it's one of the recordings she and her husband plagiarized). There is Idil Biret–I'm a huge fan of her pianism–with Antoni Wit and the Polish NRSO on Naxos, which also sounds intriguing. And then there is Nikolai Lugansky with Sakari Oramo and the CBSO. I'm becoming a big fan of Lugansky's pianism; very cool, calm, and collected, almost detached, yet with impeccable technique. Finally, almost every day in the "Current Listening" thread, I see someone post the new Daniel Trifonov recordings, and every time I want to hear them a little more. He seems to be the "next big thing" in Rachmaninov pianists. 

Rant over. Does anyone here agree with me when I say that these works reward a variety of interpretations? Or do you have one favorite that you stick with?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> I've just placed an order for the Ashkenazy/Previn/London Symphony set on Decca (for a total of $4.22, shipped, on eBay-I couldn't resist!)-but beyond that, lately, I have been hungry for new interpretations of Rachmaninov's great music. Somehow, contrary to what one might expect, I believe that these concerti reward a variety of interpretations. Rachmaninov's own performances will forever remain the best, the definitive, but that doesn't mean that a completely different interpretation can't be just as successful. Take for example the Richter/Wislocki/Warsaw recording of Concerto No.2. It's radically different than Rachmaninov's own-the Richter is slow, heavy, dark, passionate, almost Gothic, like an old castle, nothing like the poetic levity, the stratospheric heights, and the divine poetry of the Rachmaninov/Stokowski. And then you have the Cliburn/Reiner/Chicago, for example, lyrical, nostalgic, ever-flowing. And yet all three of them work. I won't get started on the Argerich Rach 3, which was the subject to fierce debate earlier in this thread, but I find it to be a great example of a unique interpretation that works, though a lesser artist than Martha could not have pulled it off.
> 
> Anyway, beyond those I've mentioned, and my recent Ashkenazy order, there are others that interest me. Yefim Bronfman/Salonen/Philharmonia is one of them, which I heard as a result of my research into the Joyce Hatto scandal (it's one of the recordings she and her husband plagiarized). There is Idil Biret-I'm a huge fan of her pianism-with Antoni Wit and the Polish NRSO on Naxos, which also sounds intriguing. And then there is Nikolai Lugansky with Sakari Oramo and the CBSO. I'm becoming a big fan of Lugansky's pianism; very cool, calm, and collected, almost detached, yet with impeccable technique. Finally, almost every day in the "Current Listening" thread, I see someone post the new Daniel Trifonov recordings, and every time I want to hear them a little more. He seems to be the "next big thing" in Rachmaninov pianists.
> 
> Rant over. Does anyone here agree with me when I say that these works reward a variety of interpretations? Or do you have one favorite that you stick with?


Generally I find Ashkenazy a good, safe bet, but it's just that...safe. I prefer a bit more daring than decorum in my Rach. Fully agreeing with the sentiment that they reward a variety of interpretations, and considering the fact that the 2nd and 3rd Concerti are probably tied for my all-time favorite piano concerto, I also am on a search for great recordings of these masterpieces. Thus, my knowledge is currently limited. I'll just recommend one that I find deeply fascinating- Julius Katchen playing the 2nd Concerto (forgot the orchestra and conductor). Pretty bad sound quality, but a very raw and personal interpretation that I think deserves hearing. I recently heard the Volodos recording of the 3rd Concerto that was recommended earlier (I think in this thread, but it may have been elsewhere) and was blown away. The pianism is truly spectacular, possibly the greatest on record. I would also like to hear the 1943 Horowitz/Barbirolli which some claim is the best of all. I have heard snippets (including the hilarious ending where some guy in the audience shouts "Bravo!" at the final note like a madman) but was repulsed by the amazingly terrible sound. However, I always believe that immortal performances outlast dated sound, so I will give it another try sometime. Same goes for the original Rach recordings, which I can only imagine are pure brilliance. And I also love Argerich, idiosyncrasies and all. Her electric passion and propulsion on the keys never fails to thrill me.


----------



## flamencosketches

^I've been hearing about this Volodos for far too long, considering I've never heard a note of his playing. I shall have to check out his Rach 3 at some point. The Katchen sounds quite intriguing as well. I know he is mostly famous as a Brahms interpreter, and from what little I know of his recordings, I associate his playing with subtlety, understatedness, and a deep romanticism. (Of course, he was playing Brahms, so perhaps he is just being faithful to the score. ) - anyway, I can see that working in the Rach 2 concerto.

I have come to really love Rachmaninov's music over the last 6 months or so... at first, I thought he wasn't for me. Now, I am inclined to agree with you, Allegro Con Brio, that the 2nd and 3rd concerti may be my favorite in the whole piano concerto repertoire - or at the very least, I put him in a rank with Mozart and Brahms as the greatest piano concerto writers in all music.

Any love for the first concerto? I am listening to this now:










Very fine music, almost like a Russian rewrite of the Schumann A minor concerto. Clearly the work of a young composer, but it's still a big, passionate concerto. I always thought it was a ballsy move to make _this_ his opus 1.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Well I am thinking that with Abbey Simon, Earl Wild, and Rachmaninoff himself, I have three very good sets of the concertos. I have Ashkenazy on concerti 2 and 4, but am not sure it is worth picking up 1, 3, and the Paganini.


----------



## rice

flamencosketches said:


> I've just placed an order for the Ashkenazy/Previn/London Symphony set on Decca


Ashkenazy's recording of the 3rd with Fistoulari is one of my favourite interpretations of this work. I think it's the best version among the three (The others are with Previn and Haitink)


flamencosketches said:


> Yefim Bronfman/Salonen/Philharmonia is one of them


Bronfman is brilliant at playing these concertos. I think he does the best ossia cadenza in the first movement of the 3rd. 







Allegro Con Brio said:


> I would also like to hear the 1943 Horowitz/Barbirolli which some claim is the best of all. I have heard snippets (including the hilarious ending where some guy in the audience shouts "Bravo!" at the final note like a madman) but was repulsed by the amazingly terrible sound.


If I'm not mistaken the Horowitz/Barbirolli version was not an official recording. Someone just took the sound from the concert (probably without permission) and after all those years since it was such a precious, amazing performance, it was restored and released on CD by apr. 
Sneaky capture done in the 1940s...Hence the terrible sound. There wasn't any portable recorder or smartphone!:lol:

Although Richter's 2nd has a legendary status and I agree much on that, my favourite version is Zimerman's one. Minus the wildness of Richter's, it was elegant and powerful at the same time.


----------



## Rogerx

Fritz Kobus said:


> Well I am thinking that with Abbey Simon, Earl Wild, and Rachmaninoff himself, I have three very good sets of the concertos. I have Ashkenazy on concerti 2 and 4, but am not sure it is worth picking up 1, 3, and the Paganini.


Do you mean this one Fritz?



It's one of my favorites .


----------



## rice

flamencosketches said:


> Very fine music, almost like a Russian rewrite of the Schumann A minor concerto. Clearly the work of a young composer, but it's still a big, passionate concerto. I always thought it was a ballsy move to make _this_ his opus 1.


Apparently there's an original version of the concerto no.1. The versions we hear today are revised by Rachmaninoff in 1917. And I'm glad he did such a revision. Listen to the original see if you agree with me:lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl

Rogerx said:


> Do you mean this one Fritz?
> 
> 
> 
> It's one of my favorites .


That is the one. I got it in a 42-track download for $9.49 of Slatkin Rachmaninoff.
www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00V63E05G/


----------



## Rogerx

Fritz Kobus said:


> That is the one. I got it in a 42-track download for $9.49 of Slatkin Rachmaninoff.
> www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00V63E05G/


IN €€€ I paid the same for the box .


----------



## jegreenwood

I'm a Rachmaninov fan, but not a fanatic, but a review of my collections shows more recordings than I realized (because of box sets). I have Ashkenazy (cycle), Janis (2 and 3), Weissenberg (1 and 2), Richter (2), Katchen (2), Andsnes (2), Rubinstein (multiple recordings of 2) and Van Cliburn (3). Janis gets the most listenings - I've had it longer than most of the others - but some I had totally forgotten.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Rogerx said:


> IN €€€ I paid the same for the box .


But I also got the symphonies (all five), and other non-piano works in the download.


----------



## Rogerx

Fritz Kobus said:


> But I also got the symphonies (all five), and other non-piano works in the download.


You seems a real bargain hunter Fritz.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Rogerx said:


> You seems a real bargain hunter Fritz.


Or out of control! :lol:


----------



## Rogerx

Fritz Kobus said:


> Or out of control! :lol:


As long as you have no debt collector on the door and you can eat and be happy, have fun.


----------



## quodlibet74

Gilels with Ormandy 1962. A new one with better sound than Melodiya edition

/Volumes/My Book/_200522/Gilels; Jochum, RCO; Ormandy, PhOrch - Beethoven, Piano Concerto #3; Rachmaninoff, Piano Concero #3 _ 1968, 1966 |DOREMI, Gilels Legacy Vol. 11|***/cover.jpg


----------



## quodlibet74

https://www.amazon.es/Gilels-Concer...&keywords=gilels+doremi&qid=1590874027&sr=8-1


----------



## 444mil

Have been listening to the concertos again, and i found Volodos/Levine(ossia cadenza) and Hough/Litton(lighter cadenza) my top choices for PC 3.

For the 2nd, Hough does great again, and i liked Lugansky/Oramo very much. I think this concerto is much easier to pull off than the 3rd, and i find most recordings likeable. (Zimerman's has been my go to for this one) 

For PC 3, i found many other great ones: Bronfman (youtube and disc), Kocsis (listen to him please), Lugansky, Matsuev, etc.


----------



## Aholeab

Vasary LSO ahronovitch excelent.I Have not heart yet gergiev kissin Witherspoon the LSO


----------



## Geoff48

So many wonderful versions of the Rachmaninov 2nd and 3rd concertos not being part of a complete set. To hear a performance of historic days by a pianist close to try Rachmaninov there is Benno Moiseiwitsch whose last recording was with Hugo Rignold in the mid fifties. The performance is loving, not strict tempo and wonderful though it is it is unlikely to find favour with many nowadays. Warm HMV plum label recording too. Another great 2nd is Julius Katchen. A great mono version with Fistoulari with the enthusiasm of youth and a slightly more considered stereo with George Solti. Then for the 3rd Janis with Dorati and Ashkenazy with Fistoulari. I think that Ashkenazy lost much of his youthful enthusiasm in later years as he specialised in becoming a conductor and I prefer this version to his performances with Previn, Ormandy and Haitink, slightly freer in conception. And Janis was a really great pianist like his mentor Horowitz and Dorati an exciting conductor.
It may be an issue of me ageing but I tend to find that the older generation of pianists seem to have more character and individuality than the modern generation. Sure the newer ones may have technical brilliance with no wrong notes or smudged runs but I would swap at that for some real love and affection.


----------



## advokat

This two albums are currently my favourites. I also like Lugansky, Richter, Argerich, Benedetti versions of individual concertos. But Trifonov, now, is perhaps the best of them all.


----------



## 444mil

advokat said:


> But Trifonov, now, is perhaps the best of them all.


What does stand out in trifonov's recordings?


----------



## PeterAccettola

I have been listening to Martha Argerich's # 3 for quite a long time, and she is just supreme for me !
Really special ..
I also listen to Valentina Lisitsa for the #2, but enjoy Land Lang's #2 even more. I think he is a wonderful pianist, and I also appreciate Vallery Gergiev conducting.
But I have just heart Anna Fedorova play the 1st, and am waiting to receive a new CD with her playing the # 2.
Great anticipation to hear that. She has a rather special way of interpreting Rachmaninoff I think, with a special touch ...


----------



## SixFootScowl

I haven't looked at the 8 pages of posts, so maybe this was previously posted, perhaps even by me, but I don't recall. This was recommended by a friend who is a pianist and a big Rachmaninoff fan. For concerto 2 he recommended Rubinstein and for concerto 3, Horowitz.


----------

