Thanks for your detailed and insightful comments. I only just saw this, so I did not reply earlier
Ce nedra gives some good pointers on the introductory bars in the LH, and phrasing in the RH. These are valid points which should have been observed, but somehow did not come out well in the recording.
On the question of tempo, one of the recordings seems quicker than the other, if I'm not wrong. My natural instinct was to play it slower than you hear now, but then again, the actual tempo taken does vary with my mood and state of mind on the day itself. I could slow it down somewhat, but the music still has to move. I listened to a number of recordings of this piece, by Argerich, Sergio Tiempo, and a couple of others, and I realised, they never took it that slowly. So the lesson I took away was not to play it too slowly, always let it move forward.
I would agree that there could be some more room for rubato. And towards the end, definitely should have slowed down much more. But not that much more rubato than what you hear now- and I'm usually criticized for too much rubato in other music. I thought that it flowed pretty nicely as it is, perhaps I might have slowed down a little more here and there, but overall I would still keep the basic interpretative framework.
Also I agree on the need for a constant crescendo in the second section. Well I did try to add in these dynamic contrasts, but keeping them rather subtle in order to reserve the real fortissimos for the climax. Also perhaps they didn't come off too well in the recording - the piano is not yet totally broken in, so perhaps the full dynamic range didn't come off as it should have. And maybe the room acoustics played a part too - it is a 6 foot grand piano in my bedroom, so there really isn't sufficient space for the sound to bloom fully (though I like it as it is, especially in the soft passages)
Similar issue with the part leading up to the climax , marked forte. I wanted some contrast, but not to "yell" it out. Yes it is INTENSO, I did try to bring it out, but as I said, I did not feel the need to exaggerate too much. Perhaps it is true that I could bring it out a little more, but still I would not throw in everything at this point. I think there still needs to be enough reserve for the real climax at the end of the second page. I wanted to give the impression of more intensity, but not to the extent of yelling it out at that point. Still wanted some room to phrase, play at a mezzo forte/mezzo piano for awhile before finally building up to the real climax. My point is that I never felt the need for all the dynamic contrasts to be played "in your face", but rather more subtlely.
All things considered, my interpretation in this recording is a much more "straight" one compared to what ce nedra and though hopefully not so straight as to sound robotic! I could of course exaggerate and add in more rubato, but that would have me changing to a totally different interpretative framework. Not that its not impossible, but I just didn't feel it in me at that time. I'll go back to this piece and try out some of the suggestions mentioned here, though what cjp and ce nedra have in mind seems to be quite a different interpretative framework I'll to end off by saying that there's always room for different interpretative framework(s) of the same piece, and its always good to keep an open mind to explore the other possibilities out there!
Topic: Ginastera - Danza de la Moza Donosa