Rachmaninov Concerti

[arensky]

I voted for no.4. Now, if it was Michelangeli's favourite, who am I to argue?

That's right! HHHAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Op. 40 not last op.40 not last op.40 not last HAHHHHH!!!!!!!!! ARENSKY HAPPY HAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOY!

                                                             

[arensky]

                                             bump....

[Waldszenen]

That's right! HHHAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Op. 40 not last op.40 not last op.40 not last HAHHHHH!!!!!!!!! ARENSKY HAPPY HAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOY!

                                                             

WHAT. THE. HELL.

[arensky]

WHAT. THE. HELL.

                                                      Is fun.

                                                        

[arensky]

                                                   bump...

[superstition2]

My definite favorite is the 4th, either the original or 1927 version, not the final revision. The 1927 version was recorded with Black and the Icelandic symphony. The final movement is performed too slowly.

As for the second sonata, it's because of RCA that there is no recording of Rachmaninov playing it. I feel the original version is vastly superior to either revision. Ashkenazy's recording is better than Biret's.

The 1st Concerto is the weakest. Even more than the final version of the 4th, it lacks beauty. The original version of the 1st, although definitely flawed, has beautiful and powerful elements that should never have been taken out. The Tchaikovsky ballet motif is really out of place, though.

My choice for the 2nd and 3rd concertos... Rachmaninov himself. Contrary to what most say, he played the 3rd better than Horowitz. Sadly, we only have a butchered version of the 3rd with Rachmaninov.

[arensky]

bump..bump bump bump.....BAAHHHH!!!!!!!

We need 100 votes for a truly representative world view on this important piano topic...

[lisztisforkids]

The people have spoken.

[MattL]

My favorite would have to be the first, partially because I love the was that the theme is constantly being metamorphosized and transformed, and i would have to say Ashkenazy or rachmaninoff himself are the best perforamances I have heard of this piece.

I greatly dislike the second, it is an awesome piece, yet it is WAY to overplayed, and Lang Lang in no way does this piece any justice.

[musicsdarkangel]

no 3 with Van Cliburn


I also love the Rhapsody with Ashkenazy

[brewtality]

My favorite would have to be the first, partially because I love the was that the theme is constantly being metamorphosized and transformed

Yes! this is what I love about the piece too.

i would have to say Ashkenazy or rachmaninoff himself are the best perforamances I have heard of this piece.

ouch, Rachmaninoff wipes the floor with Ashkenazy. Check out Janis' versions on RCA and Mercury if you don't already have them. 

[ravel]

.

[ravel]

 i think no.3 with volodos is my favourite too.
but its very hard to choose between no. 2 and no.3 . depending on the time, i might like no.2 more than no. 3.    no.s 1 and 4 are really good too. but not as good.  4th with michelangelli is awesome.
for piano concerto no. 2 , my favourite recording is richter.  no one comes close to him.
maybe i like no. 2 more . aaaaaaaaarghh its confusing hehe.
anyway, i voted for no. 3 , but i think i l ike no. 2 as much.

[brewtality]

i think no.3 with volodos is my favourite too.
but its very hard to choose between no. 2 and no.3 . depending on the time, i might like no.2 more than no. 3.    no.s 1 and 4 are really good too. but not as good.  4th with michelangelli is awesome.
for piano concerto no. 2 , my favourite recording is richter.  no one comes close to him.
maybe i like no. 2 more . aaaaaaaaarghh its confusing hehe.
anyway, i voted for no. 3 , but i think i l ike no. 2 as much.

I dislike the Richter rach2, what's up with the opening tempo? it's so laboured. How can this be so many people's favourite version? What am I missing here? Volodos' Rach 3 is good but I couldn't really hear anything new in his interpretation.

Btw, I completely disagree with superstition2's comments. The Rach 1 is the most beautiful music I've ever heard. Furthermore, imho Rachmaninoff does not play the Third better than Horowitz. His version is too truncated for my liking and I don't care for the interpretation.

[superstition2]

Rachmaninoff does not play the Third better than Horowitz. His version is too truncated for my liking and I don't care for the interpretation.

I said I don't like the cuts, either. As for the interpretation, I think it's pretty funny to fault a brilliant composer for their interpretive talents, when they're interpreting their music.

[brewtality]

I said I don't like the cuts, either. As for the interpretation, I think it's pretty funny to fault a brilliant composer for their interpretive talents, when they're interpreting their music.

Huh? What's funny about it? I think his piece sounds better the way Horowitz plays it. Simple as that.

[apion]

Rach3 is my fav, but, honestly, I don't have a favorite pianist.  Could be Van Cliburn or Horowitz.

[kreso]

My faovurite concert is 2nd
Best recordings No.1-Pletnev, Zimerman
                          no.2-Richter, Kissin, Zimerman, Wilde, Vasary
                          no.3-Argerich, Horowitz, Volodos, Kissin
                          no.4-Michelangeli
                          Paganini rapsody-Pletnev, Aschenazy, Vasary

[arensky]

This poll will close in 21 more votes. 

[superstition2]

I think his piece sounds better the way Horowitz plays it. Simple as that.

Hooray.

[jas]

I voted the 3rd concerto. For best recording I'm torn between Argerich and Horowitz 1951. Argerich's is great fun to listen to. I know a lot of people have criticised it for the mistakes, but they aren't that obvious, and the fire she brings to the third movement in particular is amazing.
As for the Horowitz, the second movement is just gorgeous. Better than any other recording of that movement I've heard. Well, the rest is great, too.

I think his piece sounds better the way Horowitz plays it. Simple as that.

Sacrilege though it may be, I agree too.

Jas

[rohansahai]

I can't see whats so great about Cliburn's Rach 3 ...its the most sleepy interpretation I've ever heard.
P.S. His Rach 2 is good, though.
My favourite recordings:
1: Haven't heard many , Rach himself probably.
2: Kissin, Cliburn.
3: Argerich owns it , Horowitz second, n the rest: Gilels(w Ormandy), Hough, Berman.
4: Ashkenazy perhaps.
Rhapsody on a theme by Paganini: Pletnev (the one on DVD) ..scintillating performance !!

[crazy for ivan moravec]

i voted for rach 3. great work IMO.

all Ashkenazy!

[musicsdarkangel]

That's right! HHHAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Op. 40 not last op.40 not last op.40 not last HAHHHHH!!!!!!!!! ARENSKY HAPPY HAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOY!

                                                             

LOL

[paris]

why almost nobody mentioned Zimmerman playing with Boston Symphony Orchestra under Ozawa?! simply stunning recording!

as for favorite concerto, 2nd is my favorite, very close to 3rd one

[phil13]

The 2nd is a masterpiece! In the 1st movement, that first theme is so beautiful, and it sticks in your head. The 2nd theme is a lyrical beauty. 2nd movement is gorgeous, 3rd is a lot of fun to listen to. Listening to this concerto right now, actually.

I don't know why, but I truly dislike the 3rd movement of Rach 3. It seems almost like it's out of place, but it isn't. The 2nd movement is my favorite out of that one, but the 1st movement, again, sticks in your head.

I once heard this statement in a much earlier thread: "Rach 2 is for listeners, Rach 3 is for pianists." Some people don't know what they're talking about. Rach 2 is just as complex, but without being too thick.

Rach 2 all the way!

Phil

[rachmaninoffismyfav]

I feel that Kapell understood Rachmaninov better than anyone, including Rachmaninov himself. I wonder if Rachmaninov ever heard young William Kapell, and what he thought of him. He hated Rubinstein....

You may think that Kapell played Rachmaninoff better than Rachmaninoff and that is fine, although I disagree.  However it is ridiculous to suggest that someone understands Rachamaninoff better than he understands himself.  That is the height of arrogance.  Rachmaninoff knew what he meant when he wrote the piece.  Furthermore, Rachmaninoff is famous, as everybody knows for studying the pieces of other composer's music to the finest detail. And you're gonna tell me that he didn't study his own pieces with that same amount of dedication. That is nonsense and you should be ashamed.

[arensky]

I feel that Kapell understood Rachmaninov better than anyone, including Rachmaninov himself. I wonder if Rachmaninov ever heard young William Kapell, and what he thought of him. He hated Rubinstein....

You may think that Kapell played Rachmaninoff better than Rachmaninoff and that is fine, although I disagree.  However it is ridiculous to suggest that someone understands Rachamaninoff better than he understands himself.  That is the height of arrogance.  Rachmaninoff knew what he meant when he wrote the piece.  Furthermore, Rachmaninoff is famous, as everybody knows for studying the pieces of other composer's music to the finest detail. And you're gonna tell me that he didn't study his own pieces with that same amount of dedication. That is nonsense and you should be ashamed.

Touchy, touchy ! It is not ridiculous at all. Rachmaninov felt that Horowitz understood his (Rachmaninov's) music better than himself. As you initialy state I have my opinion and that is fine. It is not the height of arrogance, it is my opinion. For me Kapell's recordings of Rachmaninov are superior to anyone else, including Horowitz. I am well aware of Rachmaninov's study habits and work ethic. I am not "gonna" tell you anything, how nice of you to put words in my mouth. You are looking for the fight. Look elsewhere, I am looking for discussion. I stand by what I said. Let me clarify it for you. At the piano, Kapell understood Rachmaninov better than Rachmaninov himself. At the composition desk, well that's a different sort of understanding. If you write music, you will understand that.

BTW don't edit the

marks, they are there for a reason...

[rachmaninoffismyfav]

Touchy, touchy ! It is not ridiculous at all. Rachmaninov felt that Horowitz understood his (Rachmaninov's) music better than himself. As you initialy state I have my opinion and that is fine. It is not the height of arrogance, it is my opinion. For me Kapell's recordings of Rachmaninov are superior to anyone else, including Horowitz.

Please give the exact source where you saw that Rachmaninoff said that Horowitz understood his music better than he did.  I know he said he thought he played his third concerto better, but I would like to know where you get that quote from.

[brahmsian]

Quit bumping all these old Rachmaninoff threads

[vers la flamme]

The third is great, and all but the second has always been my favorite. It has very nice melodies, and the third sounds like one big climax that keeps going.

The third is a lot more beautiful, but the second is just great.

A little info:
The second concerto was written while Rachmaninoff was in a state of writer's block. Only by hypnosis did Rachmaninoff write this. His hypnotist told him he would write a concerto of excellent proportions, and he did.

[arensky]

Touchy, touchy ! It is not ridiculous at all. Rachmaninov felt that Horowitz understood his (Rachmaninov's) music better than himself. As you initialy state I have my opinion and that is fine. It is not the height of arrogance, it is my opinion. For me Kapell's recordings of Rachmaninov are superior to anyone else, including Horowitz.

Please give the exact source where you saw that Rachmaninoff said that Horowitz understood his music better than he did.  I know he said he thought he played his third concerto better, but I would like to know where you get that quote from.

You still haven't learned to use the quote yet "fave"... 

1. "Horowitz" Glenn Plaskin William Morrow and Company New York 1983....pp. 107-108

2. Plaskin p.188

3. Plaskin p.223

[hiline]

Err.....
I have never listened to Rach 3 ( an incredible lack of knowledge,I know ) .Could you please share with me a version of it? Thank you so much.

[cziffra]

Err.....
I have never listened to Rach 3 ( an incredible lack of knowledge,I know ) .Could you please share with me a version of it? Thank you so much.

As performed by Rachmaninov:  https://classic.chubrik.ru/Rachmaninov-performer/Rach-3.html

[superstition2]

My guess is that Rachmaninov's Horowitz comment came from an earlier point than when he (Rachmaninov) recorded the concerto with RCA. It is perhaps true that Horowitz tought him a thing or two and that he adapted his performance. Or, it could just be that Rachmaninov liked Horowitz' performance better than his own, not because Horowitz' is better for everyone, but because art is subjective.

While I think Horowitz was one of the best pianists in history, I think Rachmaninov was, too. I prefer his performance of the 2nd and 3rd. I would absolutely love to have a recording of him playing the original version of the 4th. His recording of the "final revision" isn't special. There is so much Rachmaninov that's lost, because of RCA, Edison, anti-Russian sentiment, and stupid critics.

[hiline]

thanks so much,cziffra

[elevateme]

rach 3 rach 3 alll the way

worth it for the cadenza of the 1st mvt

[tompilk]

rach 3 rach 3 alll the way

worth it for the cadenza of the 1st mvt

Which one? i go for ossia
Tom

[tds]

i love them all, but recently, op. 40 has caused the greatest pleasure to listen ( to me ).

[arensky]

i love them all, but recently, op. 40 has caused the greatest pleasure to listen ( to me ).

Of course! 

[I Love Xenakis]

NUMBER 4!!!

[arensky]

NUMBER 4!!!

datz rite 

[hiline]

Hey,Rach 2 got 44 votes,and Rach 3, 45. Please add 2 more votes for Rach 2,please!!!

[jre58591]

rach 1 (original version) is my definite favorite. rach 4 (original version) is a close second. too bad the original versions of these two concertos have been recorded only once or twice. i think that people should start to play these and leave the revised versions alone for a while.

[superstition2]

What #1 needs is a brilliant musicologist/composer to combine the best attributes of both versions. Rachmaninov eliminated some brilliant pyrotechnics, and some other attractive things, in addition to the student-quality material. After hearing the original, I am not completely content with the revision.

As for #4, the revision simply isn't as good as the original version or 1927 version.

[jre58591]

btw, does anyone have a recording of the 1st revision (1927) of racmaninoff's 4th piano concerto? ive been looking for a recording of this for a very long time, as i only have recs of the original and 1941 revision.

[mig]

Which version of #4 does Michelangeli play?

[superstition2]

Which version of #4 does Michelangeli play?

1941

[superstition2]

btw, does anyone have a recording of the 1st revision (1927) of racmaninoff's 4th piano concerto? ive been looking for a recording of this for a very long time, as i only have recs of the original and 1941 revision.

link


I have this recording.

[emmdoubleew]

I like em all! 

My favorite, by a very small margin, is the Paganini Rhapsody as performed by Ashkenazy. <3