Rachmaninoff Concerto 3 commerical tactic

[burnttoast]

I'm young and working hard to fulfill my aspiration to be a professional. I was thinking that if I ever recorded and/or performed the Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto I'd use the small cadenza as a commercial tactic. The thing is, in my proposed theory, the ossia cadenza is associated with mediocre, obscure pianists and their mediocre renditions of the concerto and the little one is associated with the legends (Horowitz, Gilels, Rachmaninoff himself, etc. all used the little one) and those who care about the music rather than being a showman (Rachmaninoff wrote the little one to replace the ossia which he thought didn't fit (I only partially agree with him there)).Even if you are playing the ossia just because you like it, there's always going to be the people who are thinking, "Ugh, he's so overblown and disregarding of Rachmaninoff's wishes!" And if you do the little one there will be the ones who think you're a wimp but also the ones who are thinking that you care more about the music than showing off. Note that this is just my theory supported with only some evidence. So do you think this is a valid commercial tactic? Or just useless due to how much audiences seem to love the ossia?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

in my proposed theory, the ossia cadenza is associated with mediocre, obscure pianists and their mediocre renditions of the concerto and the little one is associated with the legends (Horowitz, Gilels, Rachmaninoff himself, etc. all used the little one) and those who care about the music rather than being a showman (Rachmaninoff wrote the little one to replace the ossia which he thought didn't fit (I only partially agree with him there))

Lazar Berman, Olga Kern, yefim Bronfman, Evgeny kissin, Arcadi Volodos, Rafael Orcozo, Glemser, etc. are not mediocre.  I don't like the way they all play the Cadenza, but they all have passages that are sooooooooooo good!  I don't think it's used for showmanship like Lang Lang, I just think that the majority pianists prefer the Ossia cadenza which is perhaps why the ossia cadenza is victim to more mediocre pianists, IF it is.  I personally prefer the Ossia cadenza.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

if you are playing the ossia just because you like it, there's always going to be the people who are thinking, "Ugh, he's so overblown and disregarding of Rachmaninoff's wishes!" And if you do the little one there will be the ones who think you're a wimp but also the ones who are thinking that you care more about the music than showing off. Note that this is just my theory supported with only some evidence. So do you think this is a valid commercial tactic? Or just useless due to how much audiences seem to love the ossia?

Well if Rachmaninoff didn't want the Ossia to be played, he wouldn't have even published it.  And he ignored some of his own markings as well, so there are many ways of interpreting it and there's nothing wrong with that.  Despite the fact that Rachmaninoff is my favorite composer, I couldn't care less which cadenza he wanted preformed.  I'll play what I think sounds best.  And if I do something that Rachmaninoff didn't do, what's he going to do?  Rise from the grave?!  And to answer your question, I have no idea if it's a valid commercial tactic.  But if it is, wouldn't you be contradicting yourself?  You want people to think that you're more of an artist by getting them to think that you care more about the music than showing off, but you say that you want to play the Tocatta to convey that, so isn't that showing off?  Shouldn't you should just play what YOU think sounds best?


AND you said that the Tocatta would make people think that you care more about the music than showing off?  Are you implying that the Tocatta is better than the Ossia?  Music is music.

The Tocatta is harder anyways, so wouldn't playing that be more show offy than the Ossia?

[p2u_]

So do you think this is a valid commercial tactic? Or just useless due to how much audiences seem to love the ossia?

Your assumptions miss the mark.
There are 2 cadenzas to give 2 types of pianists a fair chance:
1) the finger passage work type
2) the heavy chords work type
That's where you have to stop with your reasoning because your argument doesn't hold. It's how you blend either of those cadenzas into the concerto as a whole that counts, and you should choose the right cadenza depending on what type of pianist you are.

P.S.: It may be really good "commercial tactic" if you don't play the concerto at all, unless you can outdo either:
1) the fabulous Horowitz rendition of the "small" cadenza OR
2) the "mediocre rendition" by the following "obscure pianist", who really owns the "ossia" cadenza:
Rach 3 "ossia" cadenza, Lazar Berman, November 1976

Paul

[j_menz]

Your best commercial tactic (bleah  ) would be to give a truly outstanding performance. Whatever cadenzas you use won't matter much if the rest is ordinary. I doubt the music "market" is quite so easily fooled (though pianistic pyrotechnics and/or a flashy personal life may be better tactics to the extent it can).

[burnttoast]

Lazar Berman, Olga Kern, yefim Bronfman, Evgeny kissin, Arcadi Volodos, Rafael Orcozo, Glemser, etc. are not mediocre.  I don't like the way they all play the Cadenza, but they all have passages that are sooooooooooo good!  I don't think it's used for showmanship like Lang Lang, I just think that the majority pianists prefer the Ossia cadenza which is perhaps why the ossia cadenza is victim to more mediocre pianists, IF it is.  I personally prefer the Ossia cadenza.

Certainly the major pianists you mentioned who use the ossia are far from mediocre, but if you look at a lot of the recordings of the concerto the minor pianists tend to abuse the ossia. A lot of the big pianists can pull it off (Lang Lang included, I think he has one of the best renditions of it) but I posted this because I consider it to be so easy to use for show value by wannabes. A guy on Youtube posted 2 videos (part 1 and 2) called "46 pianists play Rachmaninoff piano concerto 3 cadenza." Skim through it and you'll see what I mean.

[burnttoast]

Well if Rachmaninoff didn't want the Ossia to be played, he wouldn't have even published it.  And he ignored some of his own markings as well, so there are many ways of interpreting it and there's nothing wrong with that.  Despite the fact that Rachmaninoff is my favorite composer, I couldn't care less which cadenza he wanted preformed.  I'll play what I think sounds best.  And if I do something that Rachmaninoff didn't do, what's he going to do?  Rise from the grave?!  And to answer your question, I have no idea if it's a valid commercial tactic.  But if it is, wouldn't you be contradicting yourself?  You want people to think that you're more of an artist by getting them to think that you care more about the music than showing off, but you say that you want to play the Tocatta to convey that, so isn't that showing off?  Shouldn't you should just play what YOU think sounds best?


AND you said that the Tocatta would make people think that you care more about the music than showing off?  Are you implying that the Tocatta is better than the Ossia?  Music is music.

The Tocatta is harder anyways, so wouldn't playing that be more show offy than the Ossia?

My assumption about people saying the toccata means you care more about music is supported by how Rachmaninoff has a fairly publicized saying where he said the toccata fits better with the concerto, and thus the audience, if they know that, that may cross their mind. And with the toccata being more show-offy, it typically would not be thought of that by and audience full of those who have never attempted either cadenza, so generally, being showy is attributed more to the ossia due to the heavy dynamics, brilliant style, and large chords. What I'm trying to say it that i don't think of the ossia as being more showy in regards to difficulty but in terms of the music it makes.

[j_menz]

And if I do something that Rachmaninoff didn't do, what's he going to do?  Rise from the grave?!  

Ooh, I so hate it when they do that! Beethoven's the worst; such a grouch! And no sense of what time it is; thinks it's all still Vienna. 

 
To OP: You aren't going to make people think you're great musically by what you play. How you play it is what's required. And no faking that will work.

[p2u_]

My assumption about people saying the toccata means you care more about music is supported by how Rachmaninoff has a fairly publicized saying where he said the toccata fits better with the concerto, and thus the audience, if they know that, that may cross their mind. And with the toccata being more show-offy, it typically would not be thought of that by and audience full of those who have never attempted either cadenza, so generally, being showy is attributed more to the ossia due to the heavy dynamics, brilliant style, and large chords. What I'm trying to say it that i don't think of the ossia as being more showy in regards to difficulty but in terms of the music it makes.

There are other reasons not to play the "small" cadenza. For example the standard other great pianists have already set for it that cannot be improved. [Just imagine all those people in the audience waiting for you to flunk the challenge]. And as for the extreme: Sviatoslav Richter decided not to play the concerto at all, because he thought the Horowitz rendition was so good, he (Sviatoslav Teofilovich) would never be able to say anything new or do anything better.

Paul

[marik1]

There are other reasons not to play the "small" cadenza. For example the standard other great pianists have already set for it that cannot be improved. [Just imagine all those people in the audience waiting for you to flunk the challenge]. And as for the extreme: Sviatoslav Richter decided not to play the concerto at all, because he thought the Horowitz rendition was so good, he (Sviatoslav Teofilovich) would never be able to say anything new or do anything better.

Paul

That's not what I heard. Do you have any references to it?
AFAIK, that was about Beethoven 5th and Neuhaus.

What I heard about why Richter did not play Rachmaninov 3rd is he believed that the 3rd movement is not up to standards of the 1st and is way too long and stretched (BTW, the reason why Horowitz and some others chose to make cuts--something Richter would not do).

Best, M

[j_menz]

That's not what I heard. Do you have any references to it?
AFAIK, that was about Beethoven 5th and Neuhaus.

Richter did record the Emperor, though. DG label. I have it. It's fantastic!

[p2u_]

That's not what I heard. Do you have any references to it?
AFAIK, that was about Beethoven 5th and Neuhaus.

What I heard about why Richter did not play Rachmaninov 3rd is he believed that the 3rd movement is not up to standards of the 1st and is way too long and stretched (BTW, the reason why Horowitz and some others chose to make cuts--something Richter would not do).

I'll have to look that up. I think I read that on sviatoslavrichter.blogspot.com in Italian. He also refused to play some other concertos he thought were already played to perfection by either his teacher Neuhaus or Gilels. I'll be back (c) so to speak.

Paul

[p2u_]

Richter did record the Emperor, though. DG label. I have it. It's fantastic!

Are you sure we are talking about Sviatoslav Teofilovich Richter and not about Hans Richter-Haaser? I have trouble believing that because I thought I was VERY well aware of what S. Richter ever did or didn't do.

Paul

[marik1]

He also refused to play some other concertos he thought were already played to perfection by either his teacher Neuhaus or Gilels.

With Neuhaus, yes, but I very much doubt that was the case with Gilels. His relationship with Gilels was very difficult, to say the least. It's been noticed numerous times whenever Gilels would come to town to play a recital, if Richter was following  he'd chose the same program. He was very much concerned to show the world "who is who" in case with Gilels.

Are you sure we are talking about Sviatoslav Teofilovich Richter and not about Hans Richter-Haaser? I have trouble believing that...

Ditto.

Best, M

[j_menz]

Are you sure we are talking about Sviatoslav Teofilovich Richter and not about Hans Richter-Haaser? I have trouble believing that because I thought I was VERY well aware of what S. Richter ever did or didn't do.

Paul

My mistake guys. Apologies. Must have dreamed it.  Could see the CD and everything. 

[p2u_]

With Neuhaus, yes, but I very much doubt that was the case with Gilels. His relationship with Gilels was very difficult, to say the least. It's been noticed numerous times whenever Gilels would come to town to play a recital, if Richter was following  he'd chose the same program. He was very much concerned to show the world "who is who" in case with Gilels.

I'll make sure to give you a link if I find it. There is always one factor of doubt though when one talks about such an enigma as Richter was: some people who knew Sviatoslav Teofilovich personally (can't give names out in the open, sorry) tend to bend the truth a little bit sometimes and spread legends instead of facts.

Paul

[p2u_]

Sorry for the temporary off-topic.

That's not what I heard. Do you have any references to it?
AFAIK, that was about Beethoven 5th and Neuhaus.

Getting closer: this is not yet about Horowitz' Rachmaninov 3, but about his Scarlatti:
https://sviatoslavrichter.blogspot.com/2008/11/tchaikovskys-grand-piano-of-yury.html

"Horowitz is weightless, he’s like a bird. No one can play Scarlatti like him, with such flitting virtuosity. See, I never play Scarlatti," said Richter.

I'm now quite sure I read it there on that site about Rach 3 also, written down as a testament by one of those music critics that talked to S.T. Richter. Again, this is not a guaranteed source, of course. It's hearsay. Some Russian sources I consulted also quote that Richter admired the third concerto, but the reasons for not playing it are not given explicitly.

By the way, you may not have heard this radio program (13+ minutes) with Richter (it's in Russian) where he speaks about art. He mentions the second concerto as his favorite (among others). If you haven't heard it before, consider this as a gift: Richter: Art is always unexpected.

P.S.: to the other forum members: I may write it out in English if there is enough interest in it.

EDIT: Found my source on another site dedicated to Richter: https://www.trovar.com/str/bio.html
Again, although this site has an impressive list of contributors, this does not exclude marik1's version of the truth.

Richter’s approach to music is best illustrated by the enormous range of his repertoire. In recital and on recordings he played everything from Bach to Stravinsky and George Gershwin. But he was also very selective. For example, he never played the Third Piano Concerto of Rachmaninoff or the Fifth Concerto of Beethoven. In both cases he felt that others had played these pieces so well that he had nothing else to say. He did not play all of the Beethoven Sonatas or all the Chopin Etudes or Rachmaninoff Preludes. At the same time, he was a champion of unpopular works that he felt deserved attention. Perhaps the best examples are the Schubert Sonatas. Richter performed most of these at a time when few pianists did. He also played many of the Sonatas of Josef Haydn, works not commonly heard, to the surprise and delight of his audience.

Paul

[marik1]

By the way, you may not have heard this radio program (13+ minutes) with Richter (it's in Russian) where he speaks about art. He mentions the second concerto as his favorite (among others). If you haven't heard it before, consider this as a gift: Richter: Art is always unexpected.

Thank you for this link. As always, in every word of his (as in his every note), there is no any sense of vanity or "small talk"--something only big artist can afford. All the ideas are concise, laconic, and crystal clear--the ideas of the person who spent quite a bit of thinking about life and artistry.

Best, M