I have got bored with listening to them and almost as bored with discussing them.

The first recording I ever heard of the 3rd was by Earl Wild and have yet to hear one that equals his interpretation. He plays it exactly the way I would play it if I had the ability.

Thal

For me - Olga Kern's performance of Rachmaninoffs 3rd was definitely up there.
Same with Alexis Weissenbergs performance of Rachmaninoffs 2nd.

Richter for the Rach 2 and probably Horowitz/Barbirolli 1941 for the Rach 3, Rachmaninov's own performance of the 3rd I find a very interesting study compared to many performances particularly all the recent long,mannered performances where the concerto is turned into a completely different piece of music than what it is in his hands.

Thanks for alerting me to a version I wasn't familiar with from Andsnes but at roughly 10 MINUTES longer than the version by the composer or Horowitz (someone who knew the composer personally) and 7 MINUTES longer than a very good version by Jorge Bolet (who also knew the composer) i'd say you like your Rachmaninov concertos slow and modified with lots of rubato and modern mannerism of thinking the piece sounds more profound by playing it slower.  For the original question by the person that started the thread, try this link http://pianowizard.www2.50megs.com/index.html  and after you've listened to 20 or 30 renditions by great artists I'm sure you'll find one that has the balance you prefer.  Hope you can find the music and not just a lot of personalization, try working on sections to get some more ideas.

Zimerman and Berman, respectively.

Thanks for alerting me to a version I wasn't familiar with from Andsnes but at roughly 10 MINUTES longer than the version by the composer or Horowitz (someone who knew the composer personally) and 7 MINUTES longer than a very good version by Jorge Bolet (who also knew the composer) i'd say you like your Rachmaninov concertos slow and modified with lots of rubato and modern mannerism of thinking the piece sounds more profound by playing it slower.

Wrong. They are not significantly slower. Remember that Rachmaninoff's recording is heavily cut, also. I also don't care that Horowitz knew the composer. Sometimes the composer (or his students or associates) is not the final word in interpretation of his works. Andsnes's version takes a rather moderate tempo compared to many others and does not have much rubato, actually. I like it for the great amount of clarity and detail in it, something that is lost with Bolet and Horowitz and Rachmaninoff and other pianists from that bygone era. The modern sensibility that Andsnes subscribes to is that a piece sounds more profound through clear, level headed non-egotistical playing that elevates the piece itself, not the performer.

Don't bother to say wrong when it's not.  Horowitz renditions from 30 and 41 run 33.35 and 33.43, the composer's runs 33.49--Andsres (apparently your hero) plays the concerto in the radio braodcast of it at 41.33---that is about 30% slower.  I'm sure with your mindset knowing the composer isn't important, and i guess you didn't want to consider that Rachmaninov possible made cuts because that is how he saw his own concerto after many years had gone by and many performances of it reshaped his thinking--that doesn't seem to have any effect on you either.  Be happy with your musical ideas i'm sure there are other people that will like your ideas-do you play piano or play this concerto?

Actually, I wasn't talking about the radio broadcast of Andsnes playing this concerto. He just released a studio recording of it recently. I don't feel like arguing with someone like you. I'm done here. And no, he isn't my hero. He is just a great pianist that I respect.

hmm you might have to 'sign up' but the basic sign up w email is a free account, the site as a whole has loads of high quality well shot/edited full concerts and recitals in HD.

Yuja Wang's version is pretty phenomenal, it's amazing how much sound someone so tiny can produce and her digital agility is unreal

http://www.medici.tv/#!/yuri-temirkanov-yuja-wang-liadov-rachmaninov-tchaikovsky

I know this is late, but I think you guys ought to listen to Cecile Licad's version with the CSO and Claudio Abbado. Early digital so it doesn't have some of the nicest sound compared to today but it is extremely smooth and polished. She takes only a bit longer to perform than Serge but you really don't notice it. She has terrific touch.
The connecting passages I thought were all flawless, with the orchestra and piano producing an extremely smooth, balanced, and immensely listenable experience.
The one I always go back to….

BTW the "B" side has the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43...

Zimerman and Berman, respectively.

I got Zimerman's CD of Rach 2.  Towards the end of the last movement, where the orchestra plays the famous theme, I thought the piano was just too loud with those chords.  This is probably a matter of recording engineering rather than playing.

Sometimes the composer (or his students or associates) is not the final word in interpretation of his works.

I couldn't disagree more.

When it comes to interpretations, there are millions of different things people could do, and I agree that each interpretation is as important as another as long as it is well thought out and the conviction to see it through is there. I am not as familiar with Rachmaninoff and his contemporaries as I am with other composers, so am going to use the example of Gieseking with Debussy, who is supposedly the "final word".

The composer does have the final word; they wrote the music and they saw it in a certain way. It doesn't mean that this is how it must be played and that any other interpretation is "wrong", neither does it mean that if the composer were still alive they would not approve of a different reading, it means that at the time of the last word of the composer, that is how they wanted the music to sound.

I cannot stand the majority of Gieseking's Debussy, and find it very cold and uninteresting. If anything, this means that I therefore don't like the intended sound of the piece, it doesn't mean that this wasn't how Debussy wanted it. Though in the Gieseking case, I'm sure it was Debussy's wife rather than Debussy himself (?)

I like Horowitz recording the most even though I don´t really like his playing during the last minutes.

Rach himself played it faster then he wanted since he was afraid that he would run out of tape if I am not entirely wrong and he dídn´t want any cuts.

There is no evidence for this whatsoever. It's just a casual assumption that has been widely portrayed as if it were fact. Of note is the fact that both of the two recordings of the 2nd concerto are remarkably similar in tempo, yet distributed differently between sides.

What about Van Cliburn's 1958 live Carnegie Hall recordng with Kondrashin?   He plays it beautifully, with gorgeous tone, and he lets the composer's wonderful voicing speak for itself.  He uses the big cadenza in the first movement.   He also apparently plays some of the ossias, which were Rachmaninoff's originals, which he simplified for smaller hands.  Cliburn has the large, strong hands to do it.

Oh...the hunt for the Holy Grail again 

If you want a recording with great technical prowess, a great non-egotistical interpretation, and with great modern sound quality, the Leif Ove Andsnes recordings of both concertos are what you are looking for. Avoid Horowitz at all costs, unless you like extremely clunky playing. And don't tell me that Horowitz's recordings have more color than others, because they don't.

Retrouvailles, I want to thank you publicly for this recommendation of Andsnes' Rach 3. It has become my favorite, better even than Horowitz. I almost didn't get it, because someone posted here that it is 30% longer than standard versions... but this should be a lesson to us all: not to judge the quality of a performance, nor even its sense of tempo, but abstract measurements like this. Personally, I have very low tolerance for too-slow eccentric tempos ... that's why I almost didn't get it... but never, NOT ONCE, did I feel Andsnes was playing too slowly. This is a magnificent performance, with clarity, profound feeling, and, as you say "non-egotistical", which to me means he is at the service of the music, and not trying to prove something abou himself. I cotnrast this with Martha Argerich's (to me) very egotistical beginning of the 3rd movement, which she plays at breakneck speed, destroying the music, because (I suppose) she wants to out-macho the machos with big hands... But never mind that. Andsnes is a major discovery, and I thank you for it!

It might be because it was the first recording I heard as a child, but the old recording of Moura Lympany of Rach 2 is still the closest to my heart. She seems to be delivering the message of what Rachmaninov actually meant to say with this piece.

Mike