|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.244.209.23
In Reply to: RE: Ah, Rachy 3, how I love thee posted by Amphissa on May 11, 2017 at 03:42:46
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?
Follow Ups:
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)
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: