Rachmaninoff second sonata, which version?

[pianowolfi]

I wonder which of these three versions you think is the most interesting and haunting. I admit I only know the 1931 version pretty good. I've never heard the 1913 version and from the Horowitz version not yet much.
Add your comments.

[krenske]

greetings...
it seems to me that most of the recordings coming out at the moment are of the "horowitz" version... Helene Grimaud, on Deutsche Grammophone, for example. despite the fact that horowitz made several different versions. I play "horowitz" version, which takes parts of various of the horowitz performances. Browning makes notes in his 1913+1931 editions of what he considers to be THE horowitz version. There is also a "Van Cliburn version" - which one would probably need to transcribe from his recording... it would be quite similar to the 1913 version.
Good luck!! peter

[viking]

Although there are many wonderful moments in the first version, there are also places where the music does nothing.  There are whole systems full of "filler" that doesn't say anything.  It is a very interesting piece of music, but for competition the revised edition is much better.  Rachmaninoff revised this piece for a reason.  Who are we to say that he was wrong?  He knows best. 

Sam

[krenske]

sam, im afraid to say, i must partially disagree with you....

if one wanted to be really harsh about it, pretty much the WHOLE SONATA "does nothing"... it's all filler, and a crap piece... especially when you compare it to his symphonies [2+3].

so then, this piece really comes down to what the pianist does WITH it, which could be alot [if you are rach or horowitz], or nothing at all, or somewhere in between.

in any case, assuming you met mr rachmaninov, say in Steinway Basement in 1914, and he showed you his Second Sonata... would you really tell him you thought his piece had "filler" in it? i'd probably tell him his piece was wonderful, and could i have a job cleaning his house??

[pianowolfi]

sam, im afraid to say, i must partially disagree with you....

if one wanted to be really harsh about it, pretty much the WHOLE SONATA "does nothing"... it's all filler, and a crap piece... especially when you compare it to his symphonies [2+3].

so then, this piece really comes down to what the pianist does WITH it, which could be alot [if you are rach or horowitz], or nothing at all, or somewhere in between.

in any case, assuming you met mr rachmaninov, say in Steinway Basement in 1914, and he showed you his Second Sonata... would you really tell him you thought his piece had "filler" in it? i'd probably tell him his piece was wonderful, and could i have a job cleaning his house??

  I love that sonata. I can't find it crap. If you play the first sonata too it is such a beautiful contrast. Not that dramatic and nail-biting. As someone wrote on this forum somewhere 'the first sonata leaves me trembling in my seat'.

[dnephi]

The finale is particularly effective, and I think that the sonata is very beautiful.  It is not in the classical style so much and so it lacks some things which I think are more important, but it was merely the conception and not its realization that caused it to be this way, if you see what I mean.

[krenske]

The finale is particularly effective, and I think that the sonata is very beautiful.  It is not in the classical style so much and so it lacks some things which I think are more important, but it was merely the conception and not its realization that caused it to be this way, if you see what I mean.

No, I don't see what you mean.