# Rachmaninoff 3rd cadenza



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Rachmaninoff wrote two cadenzas for his third piano concerto. One is slighter and more skittish and is the one played by Rach himself on his recording. It has also been used in most recordings by Argerich, Lugansky, Janis, Horowitz, Hough, et al
The larger cadenza has been recorded by Van Cliburn, Ashkenazy, Berman, et al.
Why one do you prefer?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

The Longer cadenza. When I first got to know the piece I considered the cadenza to be the emotional heart of the work. When I first heard the shorter cadenza I felt cheated


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Ashkenazy/Previn probably has the slowest and most monumental version among the recordings of the bigger cadenza. Much to be preferred, IMHO.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

By far the "Ossia Cadenza" - Its what separates the wheat from the chaff...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The long one most definitely.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Also the longer version . 
Van Cliburn please :tiphat:


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

joen_cph said:


> Ashkenazy/Previn probably has the slowest and most monumental version among the recordings of the bigger cadenza. Much to be preferred, IMHO.


Ashkenazy /Ormandy is the one that I learned the piece from, never heard the much praised set that he did with Previn


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

There are also Ashkenazys with Fistoulari and Haitink, but the Previn one is the slowest of those three. I haven´t heard Ormandy, but judging from the timings, the Ormandy is similarly slow overall; whether it applies for the cadenza, I don´t know ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The long one. Generally I dislike cadenzas. This one has the beef.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Pugg said:


> Also the longer version .
> Van Cliburn please :tiphat:


Berman is titanic too!


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The long one. Generally I dislike cadenzas. This one has the beef.


Hi Woodduck,

Did you ever see the burger ad for Wendy's Burgers with the sweet elderly lady lambasting a burger joint with the phrase: "WHERES THE BEEF"?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> The long one. Generally I dislike cadenzas. This one has the beef.


You like beefy ones? Here's the grand-daddy of all supercadenzas -- Alkan's for Beethoven's 3rd Piano Concerto. The cadenza begins at 2:48.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

The long chord heavy version. A++


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Interesting that Rachmaninoff did not play it (or at least record it) himself. He wrote the Ossia (more difficult) cadenza initially then replaced it with the lighter, easier one, which has now become the more regular one. He also sanction cuts in the concerto (which he himself makes) to make it easier and more accessible.
One pianist says:

_The Ossia is much more difficult to perform, and has darker tonality. It has large powerful octaves, deep rich sound, and generally has a lot of power.
The regular cadenza is more crisp, lighter, and frisky. It is easier technically easier to play, but is very fast compared to the slower Ossia.
You pick based on what you want yourself or the audience to experience. Do you want that dark sound and powerful Russian color, or do you prefer a lighter tone? Do you even have the technical ability to play the Ossia? Also, keep in mind Rachmaninoff himself rewrote this cadenza because he thought the Ossia was a little too heavy to digest for a 1st movement.
I myself opted for the regular cadenza and think the Ossia is a little too heavy, but it is really up to the player.
_


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Berman is titanic too!


Going check that out DavidA , thanks :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Another interesting bit from the Internet. Have no idea of the reliability of the source but found it interesting:

This is all a little more complicated than might meet the eye at first sight and it's not a mere case of 'preferring' on Rachmaninoff's part -- his choices as a performer and his will as a composer are not the same thing and he often acts as a performer quite contrary to his will as a composer, including in too many instances in this particular work, too, and mainly not in his own best interests as the creator of the work -- as you will soon see. My source in regard to what follows is the copy of the handwritten autograph full score of op.30 as currently sprawled all over my desk like a black/white marble slab...  
Structurally there is *only one* cadenza to op.30 and this is the one you now know as the 'Ossia'. Without it, there occur a number of crucial structural events later on in the concerto which make no sense. Rachmaninoff the performer never proved concerned about this, nor did he show any perturbation about other cuts he made incidentally in specific performances of the work which do even further damage to the inexorable logic of the piece if everything is left completely in accordance with the original score, finalised in 1909. The original cadenza (that is to say, the one now known as the 'Ossia') occurs on pages 56-59 of the first movement of the autograph score (each movement is page numbered from '1' again afresh) and is clearly written 'as one'. the second, 'lighter' cadenza is contained, in the main, on an inserted page '57bis' with 'jump instructions' as to where & how it is to be inserted into the overall fabric of the work. To this end, the incipit to the second cadenza is also located on the same page 56 as is the original cadenza and there is no immediate indication that the start to the second cadenza is not contemporaneous with that of the original cadenza. 
Detailed study under magnification shows no obvious change in ink colour or intensity with regard to either cadenza's opening bars *but* that does not remove the possibility that the whole of page 56 was written again to make the accommodation for the two cadenza openings on the single page. What is written unquestionably at a different time, in another ink shade and with probably a different nib to the pen is the word 'Ossia' introduced above the original cadenza. That is not, given the evidence, contemporaneous with the other writing on the score at this point. There is no direct evidence that Rachmaninoff ever *did* perform the original cadenza, and there are other considerations which I won't go into here, which make it likely that he would actively not have wanted to do so. He certainly discouraged anyone throughout his lifetime from taking up what by then became known as the 'Ossia' cadenza which, consequent upon that, became the Marie Celeste of cadenzas, not performed until the mid 1960s in any meaningful number of instances. I can still remember attending one of the very first and was myself one of the earlier adopters of the original cadenza in performance in the 1970s. 
The evidence from the original score only strengthens this element of op.30's performance history -- the alternative 'light' cadenza being there almost from the outset. Just the work's very structure in every detail reveals which is the one that should take its rightful place to the exclusion of any other. It is the word 'Ossia' that is in truth in quite the wrong place...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Pugg said:


> Going check that out DavidA , thanks :tiphat:


Check out Volodos too! Wow!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

And Andsnes!

Which of the two cadenzas does Andsnes use for the recording? "Oh, for me there is no question. I have to play the big one. I think the movement needs it. The other one has wonderful pianistic qualities, the kind he was developing in the Fourth Concerto and the revision of the First Concerto. It's amazingly fluently written for the hand. The big one is not as pianistic but I think it is so rich and becomes the peak of the movement. This is where the pianist conquers the movement in a big way."


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Rachmaninoff had a bad habit of second-guessing himself on his compositions.


----------



## aglayaepanchin (Jul 24, 2016)

Hey,

I love the work and I seem to stumble upon this cadenza conversation fairly often, so I have a few questions. Which one is the "Ostia" version, the longer or the shorter? Also how can I pinpoint when the cadenza begins? I know the work well but I seem to be unable to "recognize" it. Could you say an approximate time in to the work at which the cadenza usually begins?


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Speaking of the ossia cadenza, who else hears the A6 ghost note? It happens at exactly 1:26 in the Bronfman recording, (the video posted below). The exact note, the third A above middle C, is NOT played but it's harmonic is so clearly sounded that for years I thought it was part of the top melody line. Maybe not everyone will hear it but I've shown a few pianist (w/ perfect pitch) and they swear "it must have been played!". I'll include a picture of the exact measure as well with the moment circled. I can't imagine being the first to discover it but I can't find any proof otherwise. Do you hear it?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

For whatever reason, the version I took a shine to early and is the one that rings in my head is Weissenberg with the CSO (RCA long ago). Anyone know which cadenza that is?


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

kocsis lighter cadenza.

volodos larger one.

ashkenazy, pletnev, kissin too. (larger)


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

It's Rachmaninoff. Bigger is better. Preferring the smaller cadenza would be like going to McD and ordering a Diet Coke to go with your Double Big Mac and large fries.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Definitely the _ossia_ cadenza. Although I admit the best performance is in one's own imagination. Like Tristan's monologue in Act III of the opera, if somebody was to try and do it justice, they would probably die.


----------



## IMAWriter (7 mo ago)

Not sure it was mentioned here, but several of the first movement cuts were due to recording time constrictions. Lacquer disks had only so much recording time. That doesn't explain why, for instance Janis took them. Can't remember if Wild did. Both were very fine performances otherwise.


----------

