|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.131.80.168
These are the versions I have and like. I'm not a trained musician or music critic. By the time I got to the last item, I was saturated and resisted doing more. So it goes. Your mileage may vary.Earl Wild/ Royal Phils/ Horenstein. 1956, 35:40. Chesky, 10 perfomance/9 sound.
The first transition from the beginning, with piano out front to piano accompanying the orchestra is smoother than with Cluytens. Lighter feel and touch than Cluytens and Gilels though Wild can be really powerful. The return to the theme is more detailed than Gillels/ Cluytens and is Impressionistic.
Wild's entry in ii is pure post-Second-Viennese. He tosses off the thick orchestral passages with slightly vicious and witty angularity and he makes the solo passages really sing.
iii is rich with triumph, celebration, dedication, redemption, renewal and with the change in modality from major to minor these become threatening, arming, battle, triumph, subduing and rising above.
Clear, smooth, realistic 3d sound. Comes with MacDowell's second piano concerto.Emil Gilels/ Orch. SCC/ Cluytens. 1965. 38:25, EMI/ Testament, 10/8.
Mid-hall perspective. More driven and forceful than Wild. After a singing, classical opening, they continue with a stronger, Romantic feel albeit Gilels is tender and at times transcendent. In the return to the theme, the line is emphasized so the impression is Romantic.
In Gilel's entry in ii, the cascading post-Second Viennese harmonies are subsumed to some degree in the piano's orchestral writing. The piano passages soar more and sing less than Wild's.
Gilels sparkles in iii and because the pace is quicker, some of the archtypical detail and depth of Wild/Horenstein is subsumed though Gilels is commanding throughout and the finale is triumphant.
Excellent orchestral balance, open soundstage and detailed sound.
Comes with an excellent Saint-Saens second concerto.Gilels/ Kondrashin/ USSR State S.O., 1949. Archipel, 35:58. 9/ 7 to 3.
At times, the orchestra isn't as full bodied as befits the piece. Playing is generally good with occasionally thin bits. The sound is historical and a little strident at times though very listenable. The balance favors the piano and sometimes the orchestra is hard to hear. The sound drops out briefly between ii and ii instead of proceeding without pause.
i starts up a tempo with Gilels stately entrance. After the main theme, they play the complex piano/orchestral section with notes accented short which makes the tempo seem fast. Making the passage seem quick gives it a soulful power and brings out the piece's Russian soul. Gilels is singing and sparkling in the toccata-like cadenza, flowing and reverent in restating the theme and archtypical in the climaxes.
Beginning with the second variation, the State Symphony play the orchestral variations that open ii languidly and reverently leading to Gilel's powerful and graceful entrance, starting with unexpectedly sharp post-SV harmonies leading to a languid and respectful second theme. In the piano variations, he's full bodied, full of the theme and singing. They begin the close lush and tuneful.
The finale is large, fleshed out and very tight. Gilels ripples and flows his way through the lengthy digression, the recapitulation and the finale. The closing melody is triumphant and affirming, soulful and powerful.
Comes with a very good Tchai 1, Chicago/ Reiner from a couple of years later.Byron Janis/ Dorati/ LSO, 1961. Mercury Living Presence, 37:46, 10/10.
A powerful and muscular performance though not without its nuance and with a recording that does it justice. Miked close, closer than other versions, with the piano nicely out front though not as to disturb the balance.
Janis and Dorati jump right in and are very tight in their entrances and returns no matter what the tempo. Janis' tone is occasionally sparkling and he emphasizes the modern end of Rach's post -Romantic writing and brings out the song in the music.
The opening of ii is a statement of longing and knowing comfort. Janis states the post- SV harmonies clearly and with grace and he goes smoothly into the singing line that follows. He brings power though not excess, then sparkle, in the return of the theme.
iii opens with a strong orchestral statement and ripping, rippling arpeggios and strong chordal work from Janis, emphasizing the work's rhythms while giving the melodic passages their due. Janis' lead in to the finale is heartfelt and Rach's harmonies are clear. The finale is full bodied and clear and strong without being over the top.
Comes with a fine Rach. Cto. 2.
Horowitz/ NY Phils/ Ormandy. RCA, 43:15. Live recording, 1978. 9 /9.
Horowitz and Ormandy knew Rachmaninoff so, this recording is more directly connected with him though that isn't apparent in the music, to me.
From RCA's High Performance audiophile series, remastered in 24 bits. Clear, open sound. A close perspective with the balance slightly favoring the piano. Performance and recording lose one point for occasional congestion in each.
Full bodied, big boned performance. Smooth and respectful. Rich climaxes. Some demonic playing with decidedly modern sounding touches from Horowitz throughout, notably in i, during his entrance in ii, during the cadenza leading into iii, before and during the recapitulation in iii and at the finale.
The piece ends with a powerful and explosive finale.
Comes with Rach's second piano sonata.Steven Hough/ Litton/ Dallas, 2007. 38:25, Hyperion. 10/9. Smooth, seamless playing and sound, engaging and commanding.
Hough brings out less of the post-SV harmonies in ii than Wild and Horowitz do.
The balance favors the piano to the extent that orchestra detail is subsumed in homogenized sound and sometimes there seems to be a lack of depth to the soundstage.
Comes with another fine Rach. Cto. 2.
Edits: 05/10/17Follow Ups:
I think this is a fine performance, with the briefer cadenza in the first movement. Bronfman used the longer cadenza, and his recording is also outstanding.
Those chord modulations under the singing Cello line (23:30) are pure Rachmaninoff; pure ecstasy.Some performers rush, some clank and clunk, some drag, some are out of sync, some aren't properly balanced. I haven't heard all Rach 3rds, but I've never heard the passage handled as sensitively (yet paradoxically with such abandon) as Horowitz and Ormandy. I NEVER tire of it.
(The vid is set to start at the point I'm referencing.)
Edits: 05/12/17
I just listened to my old standby Argerich/Chailly, and it was the most exhilarating listening experience I've had in weeks.
Happy listening,
Jim
"The passage of my life is measured out in shirts."
- Brian Eno
Nt
Which recording are you referring to? The software in this forum makes it impossible to know what message you were responding to.
Link here:
https://www.discogs.com/Martha-Argerich-Riccardo-Chailly-Kirill-Kondrashin-Rachmaninoff-3-Tchaikovsky-1/release/1315400
Yeah, it always feels she is right on the edge of losing it - but never does! A thrill a minute!
rlindsa
Don't mean to hijack this thread, but since we're discussing Rachmaninoff: did anyone else here attend any of the Rachmaninoff Festival concerts in Philadelphia last month? I was able to go to all three concerts (despite the logistical complications caused by the NFL draft going on at the same time), which meant hearing all four concertos, the Paganini Rhapsody, and the Symphonic Dances over the course of three evenings. A tremendous experience. The two pianist were Haochen Zhang (Van Cliburn competition gold medalist) and Nicolai Lugansky. Zhang must have drawn the short straw, because he played the 1st and 4th concertos. Lugansky played the "biggies," including the Paganini Rhapsody and the 3rd concerto in one concert, surely a supreme test of any pianist's endurance--comparable to a major league pitcher throwing both games of a double-header.
Again, don't mean to distract from the original discussion, but I was curious to see if any other inmates were able to attend a truly memorable series of concerts.
Asa yet, I've not heard Lugansky in concert -- other than "broadcast" recordings. I'd love to see him perform. Count me envious, as I consider him one of the finest pianists of the current crop.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Lugansky's approach to the Rachmaninoff concertos is just a bit more "epic" than I'd like, but, given this approach, I prefer his performance with Oramo to any of Ashkenazy's of the Third Concerto. (I don't like Lugansky's earlier recording of the Third with Shpiller as well, although I think Amphissa said he prefers that earlier one. Just a bit too much girth for me in that one - LOL!) Another thing I like about the Lugansky/Oramo set is that the balance between piano and orchestra is a bit more realistic than on most recordings, with the solo piano not so artificially highlighted.
Lucky you. :)
@Chris - "And I suspect that there's one very recent recording which I like, and which for you may fall into the category of "breakneck speed with breathless displays of virtuosity"! Actually, I wouldn't entirely disagree with that description, but I love it anyway! ;-)"
Are you referring to Khatia Buniatishvili? If so, I agree with you completely. Fantastic playing, even with the incredible speed at various times.
On another note, anyone heard the recording by Andsnes/Pappano?
Thanks for your comparisons. I always find it quite challenging to try to compare more than 2 or 3 recordings of any work in one sitting. And since I have well over 100 commercial recordings of this concerto (plus a large number of "broadcast" live recordings), I admit, I have not done head-to-head comparisons of all of them.That doesn't mean I have no opinions on recordings of this magnificent composition. I have favorites that serve as my "go to" recordings when I simply want to immerse myself in the music rather than listen analytically. And there's the rub -- not only with this piece, but with all music that I really enjoy. If a performance/recording is really good, I forget about being analytical. I just drop into it.
Over the years, as I've acquired more and more recordings, I find that I am less concerned about cuts. And of course, there's the issue of the cadenza. Like the number of hammer blows and the order of movements in Mahler symphonies, this seems to be a sticking point for many people. That is especially true as the Rachy3 has become THE CONCERTO for competition and for recording artists. Rachmaninoff was of the opinion that the long version was just too much. He never played the long version in concert or recording. Neither did Horowitz, who he basically "gave" the concerto to, never playing it again himself once Horowitz began performing it. Of some of the more notable recordings, Martha Argerich, Byron Janis, Kocsis, Hough, and Wild all play the short version. Ashkenazy, Gieseking, Kissin and Van Cliburn prefer the long version.
One of the issues that often seems to come into play with this concerto has to do with tempo. There are those who prefer a really quick tempo, thus blinding us with virtuosity. But too often, the soloist can get ahead of the orchestra when s/he races. A really fast tempo can impress initially, but musicality suffers because the emotional richness is lost when there is no "breathing space." For me, both Wild and Hough fall into this trap. Hough especially seems overly rushed to me. He has said he wanted to adopt the kinds of tempi Rachmaninoff played with, more true to the original, but he's no Rachmaninoff and if you listen to Rachmaninoff's own recording, he plays it *nothing* like Hough does. A slow tempo can be very revealing of the brilliant writing of this piece. Van Cliburn's recording with Kondrashin is often considered too slow, but it is incredibly nuanced and has great emotional depth. Yet, in contrast to the virtuosic displays of many today, the Van Cliburn is so different that it takes some getting used to. And of course, a slow tempo can be just plain boring if it lacks that emotional richness, as it just plods along.
For me, yes I like good audio. But this is one of those great works in which musicality is the arbiter of enjoyment. So, in terms of my own enjoyment, simply playing the concerto at breakneck speed with breathless displays of virtuosity just doesn't pull me in anymore. As I said, I'm not particularly concerned about cuts, so long as they do not mar the flow of the music. And as long as the audio doesn't suck horribly, I'm pretty much able to adapt -- great audio is a *bonus* for me, not a requirement.
As you acquire more recordings, your assessments might evolve some. Although I find that I'm less impressed with some of these recordings than others, you are off to a good start. This is one piece of music that many of us can enjoy for a lifetime.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Edits: 05/11/17
Regarding the Hough performance, you're right that it's nothing like the Rachmaninoff performance, but, to me, that in itself certainly doesn't disqualify it. Even so, I do find myself vacillating in my attitude towards it - some days when I hear it, I like it better than on other days!
Regarding the cuts, sure, even Rachmaninoff's own recording has cuts. All other things being equal however, I'd rather not have the cuts. You say you don't worry about them as long as they don't mar the flow of the music, but to me, they always, by their very nature, mar the flow of the music! Even so, there are a number of recordings of the work with cuts which I consider great performances, including Rachmaninoff's own recording and both Janis recordings.
Regarding the alternate cadenzas, you didn't say what your own opinion is - do you like them both equally? My own preference is definitely for the less texturally dense cadenza (the so-called "short" cadenza) for the additional reason that the denser cadenza, with its grandioso treatment of the main theme, seems too much like the cadenza for the First Concerto, thus making it seem IMHO as if Rachmaninoff is repeating himself (gesturally anyway).
Regarding sound quality, this is another category where, all other things being equal, I'd rather have good sound quality than not. And by good, I don't just mean modern, or post-stereo. One of the things that bothers me no end about the Kocsis/de Waart recordings is their horrible, primitive approach to multi-microphoning, which squashes any depth to the sound. Ugh! I actually saw Kocsis and de Waart perform the Third Concerto at the time those recordings were made, and Kocsis made such a better impression in concert!
Regarding tempos, I certainly prefer pianists and conductors who move things along, although you're right that that approach can be overdone. And I suspect that there's one very recent recording which I like, and which for you may fall into the category of "breakneck speed with breathless displays of virtuosity"! Actually, I wouldn't entirely disagree with that description, but I love it anyway! ;-) In any case, which recordings fall into this category for you?
I like Rachmaninoff but think of him as a minor master. I really (really) do not understand how his 3d piano concerto has achieved such status as it apparently has. I prefer the 2d as an entire piece, prefer the cello/piano sonata to both, and suspect that his best music is in his songs.
My favourite Rach 3 movement is its first. That movement, for me, is (considerably) most musically performed by its author notwithstanding the technical flaws I have been directed to notice by various. My (so far) 2d choice (above all others) is that of Arkady Volodos who, lamentably, is barely audible among current. (For me, Volodos is similarly great on his meagre Schubert and on his Mompou.)
Should I duck?
Jeremy
I love pretty much everything Rachmaninoff composed (songs, sonatas, concertos, symphonies, etc.), and for me, the Third Piano Concerto is the greatest piano concerto ever written. I love its epic sweep and expansive dimensions, even though I feel that those qualities shouldn't necessarily be emphasized in performance. Sure, I like the Second Piano Concerto too - I remember accompanying a high-school kid some years ago, and, during our performance of the second movement, tears just started welling up and flowing down my cheeks - totally unexpectedly, I might add! Very weird - but it does show the power of Rachmaninoff's music over someone who is susceptible to it (like me!).
Regarding, Volodos, I generally love his playing, but I feel that his recording of the Third Concerto is a bit undermined by the multi-microphoned engineering, where the art fails to conceal the art! ;-) I have his Schubert SACD too and I like it a lot. Haven't heard his Mompou album.
Well, Chris, we disagree at least re "greatest piano concerto ever written" for which soubriquet I'd nominate instead Beethoven's 4th or Mozart's K 466. Were I not modest, I'd add "harrumph" to that.
As for the Volodos, age has lessened my hearing acuity; because I now live alone, I rarely turn on my "big system", listening instead mostly at my office desk where I get good sound but not so much so that multi-miking messes bother me as much as they used to (though that may also be a function of craft ebbing). But I can imagine how such would drive you, with your 5-channel set-up, to distraction. On the issue merely of musical performance, there is something magical that Rachmaninoff does with the recurrent theme of the 3d's first move that makes me feel, strongly, "Russian winter". So far, in my experience, only Volodos comes close to duplicating that.
Jeremy
In order of your comments:
I am among the few, I guess, who really abhor the Hough recordings. The audio sux and the performances are just totally non-musical. That's my opinion, and I'm okay if every single other person in the universe loves this, but I don't.
You are a pianist. I am not. I don't *know* the score, I just listen to the music. If I like it, I like it. If I don't, I don't. Personally, I find that I usually prefer the "short" version of the cadenza, but that said, I really like some performances with the "long" version. So, unlike you (I think) I like Van Cliburn/Kondrashin, but I also like Volodos/Levine, both of which use the long cadenza.
As to Kocsis/de Waart, frankly, I have never heard ANYTHING by de Waart that I like. All of his recordings of Rachmaninoff music stink big smelly piles. And the SACD recordings do NOTHING to improve this. It's unfortunate that Kocsis was paired with this untalented, incompetent "bore with a baton" on record, because he was a good pianist. Hmmm ... I wonder if I really told you how I feel about de Waart. And I really wonder if that conveys why I say that Hi-Rez is not the arbiter of recordings, musicality is.
I am not freaked by speed. I just want the real musical depth of the piece to flower. I'm curious which recording you are referring to.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
The Hough/Rach cycle has to be the biggest overall disappointment I can remember buying--bad sound; earthbound playing.
Hint: it's with the Czech Philharmonic. ;-)
As for de Waart, I think he was undone by his Philips engineers. I saw him live plenty of times, and he certainly had his moments. I remember an in-concert Bruckner 6th and an in-concert Mahler 9th that were excellent. I also heard (and still have) symphonies 3, 5, and 7 in his Netherlands Radio Philharmonic Mahler series, and I found all these performances to be amazingly good. I don't remember having heard any of his Rachmaninoff recordings, aside from the concertos with Kocsis.
BTW, I don't necessarily dislike the Cliburn recording - it's just been so long since I heard it that I don't have a fix on it anymore. I do kind of like the Volodos/Levine recording, but I feel that the recording quality sounded slightly artificial and synthesized - I should give it another listen though.
Finally, I don't know anyone who says that hi-rez is the arbiter of recordings.
.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
And I agree with your opinion on Wild. Although I appreciate his talent I've just never warmed up to his fast playing.
at this point, I'd have to go with either him, Gilels/ Cluytens or Janis/ Dorati. Though, no one is as demonic as Horowitz and the music can bear it.
:)
,
I haven't heard the Gilels/Cluytens recording since I was in my teens and I don't remember anything about it. And I've never heard the Gilels/Kondrashin ever! The Janis/Dorati has stood the test of time very well and is rightly considered a classic by many listeners, although it unfortunately has some small cuts. I also like the Wild/Horenstein recording, although Wild takes more (and bigger) cuts than Janis does. Of the Horowitz recordings, I'm more partial to his 50's performance with Reiner (also with cuts, similar to the ones that Janis takes), even though IIRC the Horowitz/Ormandy recording is uncut. Similarly the Hough/Litton performance is uncut, and even though it was recorded in hi-rez multi-channel, I still think you're right in ranking the Janis/Dorati higher in terms of SQ. And at least it's been possible to hear the Janis/Dorati recording in 3 channels ever since it was released on SACD! ;-)
On APR, which is reported to have the best sound, and Music & Arts. Comes with a spirited Tchai 1. Snippets, below.
Have you heard his 1930 with Albert Coates or his 1941 with Sir John Barbirolli?
I don't remember now where they were exactly. Anyway, it wasn't so easy to edit those things out in those days! ;-)
Thanks for this! Interestingly, I am also listening to quite a few versions.I completely agree with your assessment of Janis/Dorati. It is the best, so far, for me.
Others that I find to be excellent include Sokolov/Tortelier, Ashkenazy/Previn, Lisitsa/Francis, and of course Argerich/Chailly.
I have also auditioned versions by Trpčeski/Petrenko, Buniatishvili/Jarvi, Wang/Dudamel, and Hamelin/Jurowsky.
Edits: 05/10/17 05/11/17
all. Glad you included it.
If you're a fan of the piece, the only other one that got under my skin like Horowitz was Santiago Rodriguez with the Sofia Philharmonic. I know: who?
The Horowitz/Ormandy is a valuable aural souvenir of a singular cultural event, but it has never been a favorite of mine. That distinction would belong to the Ashkenazy/Ormandy recording on RCA. This was the recording that brought home to me the greatness of this concerto. To these ears, the performance strikes a near-perfect balance between agility and epic scope. While the recording is not as resplendent as some others mentioned in this thread, it's still pretty listenable, especially in its latest remastering from RCA Japan. A compelling performance, IMHO.
problem in this concerto. FWIW I liked A's earlier with Kondrashin(?) and thought it was better-recorded, too.
Don't mean to oversell it, but the Ashkenazy/Ormandy is worth hearing. In addition to the Japanese import I mentioned, it's available on a budget Sony recording that's labeled as a 24-bit remastering (but again, this is not going to show up on any audiophile's short list). I found it on Spotify, so it may be available on other streaming services as well. Point is, it's out there waiting to be explored if you're curious.
Speaking of small hands being a liability in this work, are you aware that Alicia De Larrocha recorded the 3rd with Andre Previn? Now there's something to ponder. Certainly an unlikely pairing of artist and repertoire. (I've never heard it.)
I found it on Tidal and gave it a listen last night on my headphone system. Really nice performance, and the sound is better than many newer performances. I've found that perfectly good labels go all crazy when recording this piece. I don't know if it's because the orchestration is a little "sparse" or if it's because of a desire to get the piano just right.
Liked it so much that I ordered the CD from Amazon (less than $7 with Prime). I looked on Classics Today to see if there was a review. No, but Hurwitz has it as a reference recording!
Thanks for the recommendation. Until you mentioned it, I didn't know it existed.
I passed over the record many times when I had a turntable. I wish I would have grabbed a copy. I wonder how Ashkenazy ended up on RCA?
Not sure, but I'm guessing it was one of those "appears courtesy of" situations we would occasionally see in the old days. (Didn't RCA lend Leontyne Price to Decca for the Karajan Tosca?) The original LP cover showed what appears to be a concert performance with Ashkenazy and Ormandy; maybe the performance clicked, so RCA worked out a deal with Decca for a studio recording.
I was supposed to have a two-piano rehearsal with him (Grieg Concerto) in preparation for a Peninsula Symphony performance he was doing. Unfortunately, even though I left early from work (i.e., from my job in the REAL WORLD!), I got caught in commute traffic and arrived there too late. I was of course VERY apologetic, but he was gracious about it. In fact he was a very nice guy - I had a good impression of him. I don't think I've heard his recording of the Rachmaninoff Third, but I have one of his recordings (solo Spanish/Latin music) which I think is particularly good:
I enjoyed the Pletnev.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: