I'm not often compelled to post in the audition room, but something about the Rachmaninoff op39 no1 does compel me. I have a feeling that this piece is played a bit too much in competitions: I've heard it in competitions dozens of times, but never once in a professional recital. And when one finds it in a student recital, it tends to come up before competitions.
I've never heard what for me would be a satisfying performance, and that is not a direct critique of you, but just a general feeling, which makes me think this is a piece that demands more maturity than would seem to meet the eye. I suppose it is popular because it affords lots of fast finger- and arm-work and fast-changing harmonies, but in the end, most of the music's detail just gets blurred.
So I wanted to pick apart your performance, not to be cruel or mean, but only to hopefully try and spread a bit more careful attitude to such a piece. Of course it is all only my opinion, but I hope you can gain from it.
First of all like I mentioned before, the RH is just too blurry. In the last bar of the first page (I am going with the Dover edition), before the climactic octave D, the notes are a bit easier to play, and as a result, they are crystal clear, even in this not terribly good sound reproduction. The entire first page has to sound as clear as you play that one bar. You may end up discovering, that you are trying to play it too fast, in other words, faster than what can be played clearly or in a comprehensive way.
Also on the first page, the LH octave syncopated leaps (like in the first bar): the second C is always given a bigger accent then the F#, which actually has the accent. It would be better played more melodically and with more nobility, then with the harshness of an accent. Also it intrudes on the clarity of the RH.
In the repeated chords on the second page, don't interrupt the momentum until the fortissimo, whcih is the climax - you put in a pause before the rhythm diminishes to sixteenth notes, then another one at the climax, and it takes away from the forward drive. All though this seems like a picky point, I think considering things like this will contribute towards getting more immediate applause at the end, because people can easier follow the structure. I'll address the end at the end of this message

, but consider that in general the structure has to be more tight.
At the "bell" part, remember that Rachmaninoff has Persian origins, the name in Iran being Rahman, son of God. The scales he uses are often Persian in origin, or suggesting at least something exotic. When you blur the admittedly difficult scales in the LH, it takes away a very important harmonic element and becomes something like empty virtuosity; I say something
like, because the notes don't actually come out. Listen to the Richter recording: every note is amazingly audible in these 32nd note scales. That should be the goal, and I think the piece shouldn't reasonably be played in competitions until passages like that are secure (not a personal cirticism, but relating to my first point).
beautiful transition into the sequential passages at the end of the second page, but I think it is important to note that at those last four bars (the next two continuing on page three), Rachmaninoff didn't notate the hairpin crescendos and decrescendos as he did in the first bars of the piece. Since you are about to move into the angelic middle section, I think it is much more advisable to keep this part restrained, and not try and make it as terrifying as the opening music. It's a settling down music.
When you make the actual transition to the angelic passages, find only one place to slow down and relax, not two. At the moment you are relaxing into the Neapolitan-ish E-flat passage before the D major, and then at the D major. Again, it makes it difficult to follow the structure for the listener; just relax where the music relaxes. Plus, there is an inherent tension in the Neapolitan chord that is cancelled out if you are slowing down for it.
The angelic passages are not bad, I think musically they are much easier than the rest of the movement. But I would take inspiration from Richter again and have a maximum volume that you do not pass; it gets a bit pushy at the D-flat harmony, and while you can certainly make that more grandiose and generous, it doesn;t have to be as loud as the music from the preceding pages. It's little considerations like this that make the structure easy to follow, and gratify the audience.
Incidentally, at the last bars of this section, the D-flat minor/half-diminshed harmony, the melody in the LH gets lost, which is not a huge deal, except to point out that it ends on the e-natural, not the D-flat of the RH, and that should be audible.
In the
scherzando, notice there is no change of dynamic, and in the last bar of the page, it is only mezzo-forte. It is not as loud as you imagine. The RH is very impressively played, and the LH on the second page, for the oriental scales, has to be just as impressive. Keep that in mind!
In this section's LH, the melody is thankfully brought out, but with not the right notes: first E-natural, D-flat, as you play, then in the sequence you bring out F, C, but actually the melodic notes are E-flat, C. You'll notice it's the E-flat which is the quarter note and has the tenuto, and the F is part of the staccato eighth notes.
On the fifth page, third line (I hope you have the Dover edition), notice that Rachmaninoff composed the "Dies Irae" theme into the LH, at least the first four notes of it, and then in sequence. It's personal of course, but I always bring it out.
At the recapitulation, the RH is even less clear. I think you are faster even than at the beginning, it should be the same tempo exactly, and it is just too fast. The notes and harmonies are not audible. I know it's not the seound quality, because other places which are fast (the scherzando) I can hear just fine, or a few bars here and ther eon the first pages. Also, I think the accents on the LH octaves can be concievably interpreted as,
pesante, but you always rush the last beat of the bars, further obfuscating the music. It's at that beat that it can be heaviest.
If you don't play it so extremely fast, you will be able to handle the LH triplet octaves as well, not only the notes, but giving them melodic force.
At the meter change and hemiola passage, you can start much softer, otherwise you will wear yourself out with the 6 or 8 bar whatever crescendo. You get much too loud much too fast, and notice where the forte is actually written. If you play lighter, the RH will also be intelligible. The high notes especially are just not coming out.
In the forte bar, you play the low D-flat in the LH as if it is a long bass note; you give it much more weight than the other notes. But it is not a long, held, bell of a note, it is just part of the melody. It's not even a harmonic fundamental, but you are playing it like it is "the" bass note. This LH melody in octaves is a wild, spread-out passage and the whole contour has to be heard to be effective!
In the G pedal point passage, the Rh has to be more melodic with the "sighing" thirds cleverly written into the triplet texture (they appear as the first note of each triplet). The LH can here play the accompaniment role. At the diminished seventh inferno, the RH slurs have to be articulated, because you rush through the bar. it shouldn't be rushed but extremely tense and demonic.
On the last page, the same comments hold as on the second page, the LH has to be more articulate. Also you;'re rushing and it is making it impossible to play the notes.
Because of your timing, you give us two options of what could be codas, but there should be only one. You suggest at first that the c minor bar with the rising syncopated tenuto octaves in the LH is the start of the coda (not the c minor bar with staccato octaves), ten you suggest that the
marcato chords are the coda. But you have to decide which one of these is more iomportant. Things like that contribute to the overall effect, and you will be less likely to get delayed applause at the end.
The delayed applause is, I believe, because of small structural defects which don't convey properly to the audience which section is which. They're not sure which part is beginning, and which part is ending. Help them out more by tightening up the structure, and leading them to the conclusions. In the last bar, a longer delay after the octave C is appropriate before the closing gesture, which should be dramatic, but not rushed, because you will flub the notes as it happened here.

I think you've got the technique to play this etude, but your performance here sort of inspired me to articulate what I feel are common problems in playing this etude. I don't think it gets played enough in professional concerts for students or competitors to have good role models for performance, and it always turns out much flabbier than it should be. Please don't take this as personal criticism, and I hope that it helps you in some way to improve your already accomplished performance of this very, very difficult etude.
Many thanks,
Walter Ramsey