Repertoire: The IDEAL Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto Cycle
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Piano Concertos Nos. 2 and 3, plus the Paganini Rhapsody, are incredibly popular, with many, many, many times many fine recordings, but Nos. 1 and 4 are much less familiar. For that reason, picking an ideal cycle can be tricky, but I've gone and done it and now you get to weigh in with your favorites too.
Concerto #1 is my favorite of the four. The relatively brief second movement is gorgeous. A wonderful work.
I just want to put a shout out for the 2nd and Artur Rubinstein. I love the Fritz Reiner Chicago Symphony Orchestra recording and can't argue your choice, it is one the the great recordings of the piece. However, the 1971 Collaboration with Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra has a very special spot in my heart (it was a gift from my childhood sweetheart now my wife of 42 years) and is my go-to listen when I feel down and out. Two old guys considered past their prime give it a depth and grace that sets it apart in my mind but it is obvious I am not completely objective. Love your talks by the way!
Oh I was SO waiting for you on this, David. A morning, many many years ago, I was sitting on the sofa at my parents' house and the TV was broadcasting the finals of Busoni Piano competition. A young man was playing Rachmaninov's 2nd, a piece that I had never heard: I was transfixed, hypnotized. I felt that was the music that, If only I could write music, I would have written. It seemed to me it was misteriously pouring from inside me - only it was Sergej's insides it was pouring from! The same day I rushed to the record store and ordered my first set - and I've since listened to lots, lots, lots of sets. Rachmaninov is in my book maybe the most underrated composer of all time: sure it's popular (at least some of his music is) but almost no one considers him at the impossibly high standard he wrote in. His music is complex, contrapuntally complex and impeccable, with harmonies you can recognize from miles away as his own and his own alone. It's music that's architecturally rich as a great gothic church - ven in the smallest solo piano pieces - and often considered like it was some sort of Disneyland. So here's my (today) greatest selection, trying to differentiate me from your (damn you, spot on!) list: 1st Zimerman/Ozawa - 2nd Ashkenazy/Previn - 3rd Volodos/Levine - 4th (my favourite of the all!)... no, this one no one can play it better than Michelangeli, I'm sorry (but if I had to choose another it would be Wild/Horenstein for the luscious meld of piano and orchestra). Keep on listening Rachmaninov!
I grew up on the Michangeli 4th/Ravel recording...and fell in love with Rachmaninoff's music with the Willam Kapell/Robin Hood Symphony orchestra recording of the Rhapsody. Kapell's untimely passing was truly a huge loss. Again, a wonderful 14:40 with you.
Rachmaninof is my beloved composer,to be in the embrace of his sentimentality is enchanting beauty,true happines.His concert that I love the most is second(and in general),my oxygen!!This concert I tell myself that I can't live without him...I listened probably over1000times!!!Adagio is my love dream!!...The performances I listen the most often are-Richter(Wislocki),Kissin 2014-Paris,Myung Chung,Zimmerman(Ozawa),Alexis Eaissenberg(Karajan),Adagio of Waissenberg I love the most...3 th -Horowitz -Mehta-Absolutely fantastic,gorgeous!!!4th-Yessss,amazing Michelangelli,unsurpassed!!...1th-I still haven't singled out mufavourites?...Paganini Rhapsody-I love the all pianist you mentioned,I will add Ashkenazy..Thank you so much for your wonderful stories about music.
Such a great point with the comparison between Rubenstein and Argerich. I picked up a lot from this. Thanks so much!!!
Hi David, I believe I am correct in saying that the Earl Wild /Jascha Horenstein set was recorded in Kingsway Hall London with Kenneth Wilkinson ( Decca) the recording engineer. The piano concert no.1 is a real barn stormer. The 1st movement cadenza will pin you to your seat!. Cheers Ian.
Earl Wild was and still is the benchmark for all these Rachmaninoff works. No one out plays Wild in the 1st Concerto!
I agree, Earl Wild/Horenstein is as a cycle really astonishing. What a virtuoso technique Wild had and nobody noticed.
In the 4th piano concerto You should hear Yakov Zak, in mono recording (Westminster records), The real deal and in My opinión, beats Michelangelo by far.
Hi, David! I just love your talks. This one is a great one. I want to mention Pletnev's recording of Rach#1 with the Paganini Rapsody. I like this...
No. 2: Katchen on Decca with Solti conducting the LSO. Fantastic combination. Recorded in the Kingsway Hall and produced by John Culshaw. Gripping stuff from start to finish.
Love Rubinstein's Rachmaninoff with Reiner, and thereby hangs a tale: As recounted by John Pfeiffer, Living Stereo producer, Rubinstein wanted to redo several variations of the Paganini Rhapsody, and as part of the costs came from The Chicago Symphony and Reiner's pockets, Reiner turned to Rubinstein and said "We do not go overtime for soloists". And Rubinstein never played with Reiner again🤭
Lovely review, Dave, as usual. Each artist who performs these great Rachmaninov works finds new beauty, power and mystery in them.
Other performances that I really have enjoyed often through the years and keep returning to include Anievas-Atzmon (beautiful lyricism), Vasary-Ahronovitch (great power and drams), Victor Eresco-Provatorov (deeply Russian feeling and songfulness), Peter Rosel-Kurt Sanderling (wonderful natural flow), and for PC 2 a beautiful performance from Cecile Licad-Claudio Abbado (gorgeous lyricism) and Hiroko Nakamura-Evgeny Svetlanov.(ideal mix of beauty and Slavic power). Finally, may I mention the marvelous Emil Gilels-Eugene Ormandy Rachmaninov PC 3, a little known gem of a performance that emanates Russian power, nobility and a beautiful lyricism from soloist and superb orchestra.
Here’s my list:
Concerto 1 - Nikolai Lugansky with Sakari Oramo and the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra.
Holy moly! What a pianist!! This performance is electric and mercurial, sizzling but nowhere out of control. His resources seem limitless. The lines are lyrical but not soupy. The orchestra also sounds terrific, and the conducting captures many facets of this concerto’s personality. A very convincing argument for this work.
Concerto 2 - no question here
Steven de Groote live with the Capetown Symphony Orchestra, David de Villiers conducting.
I have never heard a more enthusiastic performance of this piece. It is as fresh as if he is giving the world premier! And he is 100% invested, committed to the heart and throbbing pulse at the core of this concerto.
The way he plays the third movement makes me want to jump up and scream.
When is the last time ANYONE made you feel that way about this (or any!) work?
Miraculous, live and *living* performance. Absolutely unforgettable.
Concerto 3 - many contenders!
The overall standout for me is Ann Schein with Sir Eugene Goosens and the Vienna State Opera Orchestra. Good Lord!! If she did only this and never played another note on the piano she would be a legend for all time. Luckily that is not the case - we have a legacy of remarkable recordings from Ms Schein. The poise, virtuosity, clarity, balance, sense of architecture, the HEAT, the ice - and I think she was only 19 or 20 when she recorded this!!!! The conducting is on point - absolutely flawless ensemble. Once you’ve heard it this performance will definitely find a permanent place in your top ten renditions of this titanic concerto.
Concerto 4 - of course Michelangeli is the gold standard…BUT
Daniil Trifonov and Yannick Nézet- Séguin have a fresh, energetic, bristling recording.
The piece really takes flight and soars - two of the “jeunesse d’orée” who seem full of excitement and deliver a thrilling, sexy performance. It has long phrases, arches and wistful curves (without languishing.) It’s quite hard to surmount the technical demands of this beast and take it for a gallop, but these gents succeed in showing us that this concerto should be in the active repertoire - at least when it is done at this level.
Rhapsody - Rubinstein and Reiner
The beauty! Rubinstein’s singing, golden sound and tasteful elegance combined with Chicago sounding glorious under Reiner and in Living Stereo. How can it get better than that?
Interesting considering that Rubenstein and Reiner never got along, if I am correct.
@@francispanny5068 I believe that Reiner refused to work with Rubinstein after making this recording.
@@edwardbak4459 There was another recording with Reiner conducting and Van Cliburn performing. Reiner was in a relaxed mood at the time of that recording.
Great list! One honorable mention, Leif Ove Andsnes no. 3 on Virgin was amazing. I think it was recorded live too. He's does some great Etudes Tableaux as encores. Good stuff!
David, I am LOVING these IDEAL videos, and this one has been the best yet! I didn't think it would be. Before I watched it, I thought "Rachmaninov Piano Concertos!? I've heard those a million times! I know them backwards and forwards." And I had heard all of your picks before, but I gave them another spin on your suggestion. I forgot how great the Byron Janis version of the First is! I've always liked the piece but his version makes it sound even better. However, the real find was Rubinstein. I used to love this recording. It was the Rach 2 that I imprinted on. However, I gave it up after hearing some of the more barnstorming versions. How wrong I was! It's not that Rubinstein lacks passion or skill. He has those to spare, It's just an Apollonian conception of the piece. I loved it so much I listened to his Paganini Rhapsody, too, and just had a wonderful time. It's like meeting an old friend again. Such joy! I'll admit my go to cycle is the Earl Wild (though Kocsis is amazing, too). However, listening to all these different interpretations is in some ways much more fun. So thanks again for such a lovely video and making me think while I keep on listening.
Thank YOU for sharing your experiences with me, and all of us!
In my opinion, Yefim Bronfman can't be beat for nos 2 and 3. There is a spectacular CD that has both with Esa-Pekka Salonen conducting, which has perfect sound, perfect conducting, perfect everything. One of my favorite CDs period.
Hi David. My selection of Piano Rachs: No 1: Krystian Zimerman/Boston Symphony Orchestra/Seiji Ozawa; No 2: Anna Fedorova/Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie/Laércio Diniz; No 3: Vladimir Ashkenazy/ Concertgebouworkest/Bernard Haitink; No 4: Zoltán Kocsis/ San Francisco Symphony Orchestra/Edo de Waart; No 5: Paganini Rapsody: Stephen Hough/Dallas Symphony Orchestra/Andrew Litton. Thank you so much for your nice, informative and entertaining videos, 🎬🎶🎹👈🏼
Well, I just about fell off my chair right off the hop. I love the Kocis Rach cycle! I didn't think anybody shared this view. I love Richter's 2nd. As for the 3rd, young Yunchan Lim, in his live performance at the Cliburn competition, has lept to the top of my list. Kocis playing the Paganini Variations is my top choice.
For the second, Alexander Tharaud and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is a truly gem. Alexander Vedernikov is the conductor. This is a superb performance and the recording is perfect.😊
I will check that out
Sign me up for the 1st one, I really do like this work. The 4th is the only one which never got to me. For Rachmaninoff concertos I've never was much interested in listening to many different recordings. I've been completely satisfied with Ashkenazy/Haitink cycle for years and I'm done. Sure, I've heard different versions - especially the 3rd one (duh), Horowitz (several ones), Argerich, Gavrilov, Malcuzynski, Wild, Rachmaninoff himself of course. Rubinstein's 2nd is a gem. All well and good, any many others also good, but I always come back to Ashkenazy/Haitink.
I do have a preference for the second concerto (along with Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini) and played by John Ogdon. John Ogdon shows confidence as well as expertise.
Just listened to the Rubinstein/Reiner performance again. What struck me was Rubinstein's performance lacked any intent to impress. That made it easier to see through to the music in all its beauty.
Very tricky not to mention Janis (1) and Michelangeli (4) in my "ideal" set... That said, here goes...
1: Wild (those opening double octaves!)
2: Richter (tempi, power, majesty, lightness, he really nails it with this one)
3: I love the fire in Argerich's (the speed of the opening bars of the finale, crikey!) but I have to choose another... Ashkenazy (with Fistoulari) - youthful and virtuosic!
4: Hough - has to be a close second to Michelangeli
PagRhap: Pennario - show me a recording that does Variation 23 as twinkly, swiftly, lightly as he does, he absolutely gets it right (obviously the rest of the performance is super too)
My favourite cycles are Wild and Hough, with Kocsis coming in closely afterwards. All three of them get it pretty close to perfect with every single concerto. But you are right to call out some of these other recordings, especially pianists like Byron Janis who played/recorded 1, 2 and 3 often... It's such a shame he didn't record 4 and the Paganini Rhapsody, but at least there is a DVD available of him playing the latter, available on RUclips too!
Sudbin playing the original version of 4 is a total knockout - easily my first choice.
Love Richter/Wistocki 2nd piano concerto. Just love it.
I know Im kind of off topic but do anyone know of a good website to watch newly released series online ?
@Isaiah Aydin thank you, I signed up and it seems like they got a lot of movies there :D I really appreciate it !!
Yes! Kocsis/de Waart is pure gold!
Thanks - Argerich is wonderful, because she paints the big picture and at the same time reveals thrilling details everywhere. No compromises are made there! One of great recordings of any concerto. Thanks for your ideal series - please continue it!
If 2020 has taught us anything, it is that we cannot take anything for granted. These warhorse concerti are too often played in comfort, for comfort. Not here:
1. Mikhail Pletnev/Pesek
2. Rosa Tamarkina/Anosov
3. Alexis Weissenberg/Bernstein (the Pretre recording is better but this one is the mad genius version)
4. Kun-Woo Paik/Fedoseyev
Rhapsody: Victor Merzhanov/Rozhdestvensky
Will have to check out Tamarkina. First I've heard of her!
Good choices all, thanks. I wish you had given at least a brief nod to Cliburn's Rach 3. I know you're not big on judging recordings by their historical (as opposed to musical) interest, and this just-back-from-his-Moscow-triumph live recording certainly is of historical interest. But I love the majesty Cliburn brings to the piece, as opposed to the hell-for-leather sprint-throughs of Horowitz and Argerich. Another sidebar: has anyone noticed what a great Rachmaninoff conductor Reiner was? Rubinstein's Rach 2 and Paganini Variations, Horowitz's Rach 3, Janis' Rach 1, and, if you want something other than concerto accompaniment, a really terrifying (for the right reasons) Isle of the Dead. I wish Reiner had recorded the Second Symphony.
I tried to pull out more recent recordings instead of the old guard, but here we go:
1. Krystian Zimerman / Seiji Ozawa (DG)
2. Denis Matsuev / Alan Gilbert (RCA)
3. Arcadi Volodos / James Levine (Sony)
4. Stephen Hough / Andrew Litton (Hyperion) - I liked this series
5. Paganini Rhapsody - Artur Rubinstein / Fritz Reiner (RCA)
Thanks for the survey!
It’s TRUE! It’s TRUE!!! 😅😂🤣👍
@@MegaThepostman I have used this handle for 15+ years, and I think you are the first to figure it out. Nice!
I've imposed an additional constraint on myself. This is my ideal cycle performed only by women pianists. (There may be men at the podium and in the orchestra, but I'm willing to accept that.)
No. 1 - Valerie Tryon / Royal Philharmonic / Jac van Steen (SOMM) -- The 1917 revisions. Recorded when Ms. Tryon was nearly 80; simply marvelous for its vigor and heartfelt intensity. I must mention that one of the couplings is a tingling performance of ‘Variations on a Nursery Tune’ by Dohnanyi -- a real treat!
No. 2 - Alicia de Larrocha / Royal Philharmonic Orchestra / Charles Dutoit (Decca). Slow, dreamy, and exquisitely played second movement, which doesn't mean that the remainder lacks urgency and drama. I hope Dutoit didn't give her any trouble.
No. 3 - Valentina Lisitsa / London Symphony Orchestra / Michael Francis (Decca) - Slightly less maniacal than Argerich, but that's not a bad thing. Big and muscular, but also lithe when needed.
No. 4 - Noriko Ogawa / Malmö Symphony / Owain Arwel Hughes (BIS)
. Apparently, BIS sat on this recording for over 10 years, ostensibly because they wanted to complete Ogawa's Debussy complete set first. What kind of reasoning is that?
Rhapsody: -- Monique de la Bruchollerie / Orchestre De L'Association Des Concerts Colonne /Jonel Perlea (DOREMI) Fierce and animated, but with remarkable jeu perlé.
Hi David! I hope you’ll consider doing a talk on Rachmaninov the bells imho his masterpiece! Great talk! Wishing you well
Yuja Wang is great in the second concerto on youtube. Kathia Buniatishvili is not so bad,. They are both lovely, and generous. Anyway, maybe I fell in love with both of them and my judgment is altered.
You are right of course in your selections. My personal preference has always been for Earl Wild - had them all on record & now on CD. But also had Horovitz/Reiner for No. 3 - soft spot for that one..
This is surprisingly difficult!
1 Matsuev, Marinsky, Gergiev
2 Richter, Warsaw NPO, Wislocki
3 Cliburn, Moscow PO, Kondrashin
4 Vasary, LSO, Ahronovitch
Paganini Rhapsody - Katchen, LPO, Boult
The Vasary recording is really underrated IMO
I agree, Vasary has made some good (and unfortunately now somewhat overlooked) recordings, including this one.
You've certainly picked the standout performances for 1 & 4. I first heard these versions 30 years ago and nothing I've listened to since compares. The fun starts with 2 & 3. For #2 I'm going with Ashkenazy/LSO/Previn. Wonderful recording quality, majestic playing that really brings out the grandeur and romance of the piece. #3 is the hardest for me. I've listened to at least 40 versions. I do like the Janis and Bronfman. As a fan of the big cadenza I'm picking Gavrilov/PO/Muti. Powerful, commanding, playing and a great quality performance that makes me want to stand up an clap at the end. The Argerich you mention was my choice for many years but exciting as it is to listen to occasionally, I find that it lacks that all important 'spaces between the notes' in critical sections that mean it misses a bit of the shape of the piece. That said, you are of course correct that in the second movement she is epic. When the piano enters it is like a thunderstorm! I'll be interested to hear Yunchan Lim when he records #3 as I did enjoy his Cliburn, especially the final movement.
I will just add two recommendations that are very often overlooked and I want to do them justice.
First is Yefim Bronfman's recording of No.2 and 3 with Esa-Pekka Salonen. Probably my favorite recording of No.2
And second is one of the most underappreciated pianists of our time, Bernd Glemser, who recorded a Rachmaninoff cycle with Antoni Wit. Glemser has a strong taste for polyphony and counterpoint, which makes for truly engaging performances of the Rachmaninoff concertos, especially No.3. Plus his Ossia Cadenza is absolutely terrific
I need to listen to 1 and 4 more, but my favorites for 2 and 3 are probably pretty unusual:
2: Richter with Sanderling (not the popular Wisłocki one)
3: Lazar Berman with Abbado (ossia cadenza)
Honorable mention to Hamelin for my favorite recording with the standard cadenza, and Volodos for another top-notch ossia version. I'm sure you've heard all of these, and if you have, what do you think of them?
They aren't among my favorites, but in such frequently recorded works everyone will have their own and frankly it's just about impossible to sort out often minor differences between them. I think talks such as this show just how easy it is to find satisfying versions.
Absolutely, and thanks for that lightning-fast reply! There are so many outstanding recordings that I've gotten to the point of having to rank them for individual movements or even sections within movements.
Some fresh ideas (!)
Concerto 1 Wild/Horenstein
Concerto 2 Katchen/Solti
Concerto 3 Horowitz/Barbirolli 1941
Concerto 4 Ashkenazy/Previn
Paganini Rhapsody Abduraimov/Gaffigan
On the 3rd I would also add Kocsis, Gavrylyuk & Yunchan Lim
High praise for Horenstein coming from Dave...that truly is a surprise! Good point about Rachmaninov actually being a musician’s musician. I don’t get why anyone would dismiss it as otherwise. Looking forward to an ideal Prokofiev piano concerto cycle!
Thank you for this brief, but no less informative, vid! I like Rachmaninov's piano works, in particular his 3rd concerto. As a historical alternative to Argerich's power-play I nominate Gilels with Cluytens and the Paris Conservatory. It is bright and happy (and maybe a tad syrupy at times - but doesn't that click with Rachmaninov?)
For a long time, I never botherhered with nr. 1 and 4. Here's a funny story. The slow movement of nr. 4 has part of a tune that is somewhat similar to a dutch song 'Twee ogen zo blauw' (two eyes so blue). I mentioned this to a friend, who certainly was not into classical music, but he agreed.
my list is zimerman+ozawa for #1, ashkenazy+haitink for #2, kocsis+de waart for #3, michelangeli+gracis for #4, and fleisher+szell for paganini
I first discovered the Rachmaninoff concertos in the mid-fifties. Back then he was mostly dismissed as a reactionary not worth the attention of any serious musician. Having been hopelessly enamored of his music from the first moment I heard his infamous Prelude in C sharp minor (I think it was in a Popeye cartoon), I learned to keep such predilections to myself when among those who knew better. I've felt gratified to witness his rehabilitation in recent years.
I love your 'Ideal Cycles'. It would be great if' you could also do 'Sleeper Cycles' - then you could really dig into the far corners of the catalogue. It's always great to discover unfamiliar performers.
I agree, but I do try to take availability into account, at least to some degree. You have to remember that I'm trying to reach some who might be new to this, not just hard-core collector geeks such a myself, and I don't want to be too obscure. Also, interesting thought it may be, it's hardly necessary to get great versions of most works.
I was about to hear the COMPLETE MENDELSSOHN Symphonies -- thus, wanted your take on them -- when THAT video was followed by THIS one... I have to say, with SO many Rachmaninoff Concerti recordings to choose from, I was afraid that a toss of the coin may have presented a good list, but I was curious about what you would say. So, I kept listening. Sorry to say, YOU said we cannot choose from YOUR list, but I was pleasantly stunned that throughout all the mess you have totally picked my favorites. Byron Janis/Kondrashin (Reiner is a near 2nd, perhaps) for No. 1 with Michelangeli as the ONLY POSSIBLE CHOICE (for best one) of No. 4, it is impossible NOT to choose your picks. The Rubinstein choice for No. 2 tickled my very being -- too many to choose from but for ALL the reasons you noted, there are none like it. Such a perfect choice. Then, drumroll... what to choose for the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini? Earl Wild was a wonderful -- "Ah, YES!!!" -- choice. There are, alas, TOO many stunningly wonderful performances of the 3rd that, again, you nailed the correct one but there only, perhaps (well, along with Earl Wild) if I had had to choose before hearing your choices, I may well have picked another. For many years, I would have chosen -- not by any means as the ONLY "tie for first place," Ashkenazy with Ormandy/Philadelphia. For me, among all his many recordings of Rachmaninoff (Ashkenazy), this one floats up as an unusual diamond. But, then, along comes Argerich and I have to agree, she does something that, finally, seems to blow everyone out of the water with her ability to say "I have conquered this work!" So, sorry to be so agreeable. I thoroughly second your choices, and apologize for breaking the rules.
I couldn’t find a video reviewing actual existing cycles. If you haven’t made one… might be worth it.
1. Byron Janis too - 2. Sviatoslav Richter is savage - 3. Argerich too - 4. Ashkenazy was my choice but I love Michelangeli and never heard him, THANKS - Paganini-Rhp I would prefer Rubinstein or Van Cliburn hard decision
Piano Concerto No1. I agree with your choice but as alternative Pennario/Previn/RPO on (RCA). Not as sonically in your face version but there is no doubt Pennario adds a sensitivity aspect and this version is less fatiguing on the ears
Piano Concerto No. 3
Jorge Bolet & London Symphony Orchestra & Iván Fischer . One of my favourites. Bolet does not take all the limelight and the orchestra has its say and by god Fischer makes sure they do.
*Piano Concerto No.2 Kyohei Sorita, Andrea Battistoni, RAI National SO (DENON) . A modern recording but its not rubbish and has plenty of fireworks
I heard this the first time with the Rubinstein and was just never satisfied with any other until I heard Yuja Wang perform it live at Tanglewood. I just pre-ordered the LP set with the concertos and have high hopes!
The first recording I listened to of the Third was Leonard Pennario, which was on a Seraphim record. I didn't know he was also a composer. His piece "Midnight on the Cliffs" is on you-tube and it's possible that Alexander Courage borrowed it for the "Star Trek" theme (!). Pennario said he didn't like to practice but he liked performing concertos. A lot of pianists seem to feel that way.
I was hoping you might have had a Rach III 'ossia' choice, for pianists who espouse the short """"easy"""" cadenza. As I grow older, I seem to enjoy the 1st Movt better with it in play. My first recording (and one I still love) of this work was (is) the Ashkenazy, Fistoulari LSO in which he plays the shorter cad.. I was always intrigued by the LP sleeve note for that record: "This work was recorded without cuts" or similar wording. Quite a feat as I don't recall many/any flubs.
I honestly don't care which cadenza gets used, as long as the performance is great. Given a choice, I suppose I'd opt for the shorter, lighter one, all else being equal.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Naaaaaaah, the 3rd NEEDS the big, apocalyptic cadenza to truly be the full package.
@@Zezahn No it doesn't.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Yes it does. Your move. :-) (just kidding)
Well for a one off Rach 2, my forever favourite is Dmitri Alexeev / Fedoyesev / RPO, including 3 preludes all exquisitely played. Mid-1970's
I think I rather prefer the other way around from your approach in Rach's 2nd, and I love the battle between Richter and Wislocki. Richter seems at times to be conducting the orchestra himself marking the pace with his rubato chords; the orchestra almost not following, almost collapsing, and that makes it so organic and thrilling.
just my 2 cents:
rach1 - Janis, Ashkenazy/Haitink, Rachmaninoff's own rec.
rach2 - Kapell, Licad, Richter/Sanderling
rach3 - Ashkenazy/Ormandy, Kocsis, Hough, Rodriguez
rach4 - Kocsis, Lisitsa
op.43 - Trifonov/Mehta(Live), Pletnev/Abbado(Live)
#1 Pletnev/Pesek - it's just kind of perfect, not much to add;
#2 Rachmaninov/Stokowski 1929 - best rubato and timing you will have ever heard in your entire life + that legendary luscious sound of Philadelphia strings;
#3 either Rachmaninov/Ormandy or Pletnev/Rostropovich (first for the flow and incredibly flexible phrasing, second for the depth and drama);
#4 Michelangeli... maybe. Rachmaninov's own recording is very different in overall atmosphere (a lot less contemplative) but just as convincing, in my opinion. Both marvelous.
#5 Rhapsody - Pletnev/Abbado live recording. Berlin Phil at their best, Abbado at his most commanding, Pletnev at his most incredible.
PSA: If you want to check out Rachmaninov's recordings, there is a wonderful channel - Restoration Archive - that is remastering and cleaning up old recordings from the best available sources and they have posted all of Rachmaninov's concerto recordings by now, much cleaner/more balanced and well worth a listen.
1. Richter
2. Vasary DG, Orozco Philips
3. Horowitz, Volodos, Katsaris Piano21
4. Michelangeli
Paganini. Vasary DG
1. Thibaudet w/ Ashkenazy and Cleveland
2. Cliburn w/ Reiner.
3. Jon Nakamatsu w/ Chris Seaman Rochester Phil (I saw Nakamatsu play this when i was a kid, sentimental I know but it holds up)
4. Wild and Horenstein.
Paganini: Dmitri Alexeev w/ Temirkanov. Absolutely stunning. St petersburg phil plays the crap out of it.
You said not to repeat any of your choices, so I won't mention that I fully agree with you about no.1 (Janis/Kondrashin) and no.4 (Michelangeli/Gracis).
For no.2 it has to be Richter/Wislocki. He just makes everyone else sound pedestrian. Next for me would be Janis/Dorati and Earl Wild/Horenstein.
For no.3, Lazar Berman/Abbado. Nobody else seems to have mentioned this one. When it first came out on LP the sound was not good but the latest remastering has greatly improved it, and the performance is simply stupendous. My second choice would be Argerich/Chailly.
For the Rhapsody, I really like Trifonov/Nezet-Seguin.
But now, I really must investigate the Kocsis cycle... So many to listen to, so little time.
So true...
I don't know if it's available yet, but I just heard the Philadelphia Orchestra's live performance yesterday of the Rach 3, and I have never, ever heard any recording or live performance that could compete with this one. Everything was perfect and more, the orchestra superb, the piano better than anything I could conceive! I wonder if these performances are available on recordings? The artists were:
Lahav Shani Conductor
Leif Ove Andsnes Piano
I was growing up and as Van Cliburn conquered Russia - he conquered me. So for concertos 2 & 3 - just love those. But there are others I love Benno Moisewitsch in the 2th , Gary Graffman and Sviatoslav Richter are wonderful.
For the 3th and 2th I still prefer Horacio Gutierrez/Maazel, it's simply magic and incredible synchronized ❤
I definitely do not take Rachmaninoff for granted! I find so much of the music rife with sentimentality (which is a place I often find myself as well, so we are a perfect match) if not at times crossing the line over to depressing. The symphony #3, symphonic dances, and The Bells being my 3 favorite Rachmaninoff works.
Have you had a chance to listen to the new recording of the Daniil Trifonov Rach 3 and 1? I didn't really care for his Rach 2 and 4 disc. I heard Trifonov play Rach 1 in Dallas about 5 years ago and he played the slow movement really, really slow so I wonder if he stuck to that approach in the recording.
I bought the Trif for my own pleasure and heard it one--it didn't make a big impression, but I wasn't listening intently.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Okay, thanks.
For the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, can I suggest (for your consideration - you probably know it well, already?) the Bella Davidovich/Neeme Jarvi/ (Royal) Concertgebouw Orchestra version that was originally issued on Phillips, coupled withe Saint-Saens Piano Concerto No. 2.
No 1 Janis No 2 Rubinstein and Richter a draw, No 3 Horowitz 1951 No 4 Mixhelangeli
great vid and I loved to hear your reasons! next up ideal Prokofiev piano conerto cycle? ;)
It will come!
My first (and so far only) Paganini Rhapsody I have is performed by a very young Peter Jablonski with Ashkenazy conducting the RPO. I love this very, very lively collection but I have no reference as it's the only one I have. Jablonski is very confident and effortless, and the whole thing put together is a whirlwind tour. On the same disk is Shostakovich Piano Concerto 1 (instead of another Rachmonioff) and, not too frequently performed I guess, Lutoslawski's Paganini Variations, which I also find a blast. But what do I know? I'd love to hear other's opinions on this. It's a lot of Paganini violin turned into piano and the result is awesome.
Piano Concerto No. 1 Entrement and Ormandy - perfectly balanced and very virtuosic soloist and fine accompaniment - I have never heard a less than fine recording of this near perfect work however.
Piano Concerto No. 2 Istomin and Ormandy - this recording is very exciting for the faster pace than any other I have heard from any other soloist that for me powerfully suits the work, particularly on the Alla Marcia in the first movement. Piano Concerto No. 3 Bronfman and Salonen - After Van Cliburn and Watts Bronfman was one of the first pianists to record my strongly perferred Ossia cadenza that biases me away from other fine recorded performances and his performance for me is as fine as any. Piano Concerto No. 4 Entrement and Ormandy again for the same reasons as the first concerto above though I love Michelangeli, too. Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini - Graffman and Bernstein - issued shortly after Entrement and Bernstein recorded the No, 2 which is the worst recording of the work I have heard for dead slow tempo and wrenching sentiment. I love Graffman's crisp, clean playing, reminiscent of Istomin and Katchen, in this work which now has so many fine recordings that it is so challenging a to find one. I really like a brisk rendition of the crowning last solo notes of the work that Graffman executes as well as the composer.
Loved the talk. I agree 1 and 4 are great deserve to be played way more often. Also, could you talk about the Glazunov Symphonies some time? I know there aren't too many recordings of them to choose from but they definitely deserve to be talked about.
I agree.
so happy to see the rubinstein / reiner release make the cut. For Rach 3, I give the nod to Volodos
I love Weissenberg’s #3.
Yes! I'm glad someone mentioned him...I consider him largely overlooked and underrated.
I think the recent recordings of Daniil Trifonov are all outstanding. He is a rare pianist that though young has a very mature understanding of the piano literature. His Rachmaninov recordings, along with his Liszt recordings, need to be heard.
I agree with you completely about Michelangeli's recording of the 4th!
In the Second Concerto, I, like you, adore the Rubinstein/Reiner (and the other two Rubinsteins as well); but I also love so many others: Cliburn, Kissin, and Zimerman/Ozawa for example.
In the Third I like Cliburn (though the conducting is so-so in my opinion); and Rudy/Jansons; also Volodos/Levine very much! And many others!
The only recording of the First that I REALLY enjoy is Rudy/Jansons.
In the Rhapsody my favorite is Cliburn/Ormandy, but I also love Pletnev/Abbado, Pennario/Fiedler, and on some days Rubinstein/Reiner.
My list would be:
Nr. 1 Zimerman/Ozawa
Nr. 2 Richter/Sanderling
Nr. 3 Gavrilov/Mutti
Nr. 4 Michelangeli / Gracis
Nr. 5 Paganini - Gavrilov / Muti
Praise for the Berman / Abbado too. Incredible ossia Cadenza
You left out the Helfgott ROCK-3. I wonder why. My favorites (in order) 4th, 1st, 3d, and 2d.
1 Janis/Kondrashin
2 Richter/Wislocki
3 Janis/Dorati
4 Wild/Horenstein (Chesky release)
Paganini Rudy/Jansons
My picks would be:
No. 1 Pletnev/Pesek
No. 2 Richter/Wislocki
No. 3 S. Rodriguez/McRae
No. 4 Kocsis/de Waart
Rhapsody Hough/DSO
Glad to see another vote for Pletnev. Actually all of these among my favorites.
I was REALLY waiting for this one. Actually, I was going to ask you directly about the Rachmaninov concertos. Well, my favorites are different from yours (and that's the fun of it all, of course).
A side note before stating my favorites: in every works, I really think that in terms of musicality and interpretation, nothing can really beat Rachmaninov's recordings. The problem, of course, is the sound which doesn't allow us to listen to the rich sonorities of the orchestration as it should.
That off my chest, here are my favorites as of today, and the whys I can give:
Concerto 1 - Wild/Horenstein. I like Wild's (and Horenstein's) way with the pace, flexibility of tempo, well shaped phrasings and the lush sound of the orchestra, with some portamenti and much warmth. I prefer it to Janis/Kondrashin, not least because I think that Kondrashin sometimes goes a little too far in the "look! I made a dynamic contrast, see?" department. Also, the Mercury sound gives me a less cohesive picture of the body of the orchestra, I suppose that the room didn't help much. So I feel the need for that extra bit of resonance, and on the other hand I sense a little more humbleness in the way the piece unfolds in Horenstein's hands. But don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Janis! Since I heard his Tchaikovsky concerto and his unbelievably natural way with Rachmaninov, I was absolutely surrendered to his best moments.
Concerto 2 - There's not one version that has all that I like, but lately I tend to turn to Graffman/Bernstein. Though not as idiomatic as Janis usually is, Graffman is also idiomatic, I think. He gives us a sense of the Russian connotations from the beginning, where we can get the idea of the tolling of bells, so deeply cherished by other Russian composers of the late nineteenth-century. I also think he has a spontaneity of pace, phrasing and (soberly judged) rubato not far from Janis's. Maybe there is really something similar in their Horowitz-schooled sensitivity that makes them get the best of it without overdoing the fireworks like their mentor did too many times. Also, Bernstein, unlike he would do later in his career, doesn't get too far in his emotional disfigurations (I have always had problems with DG Mahler, for example, because emotion and show-off intensity sometimes damaged the momentum and cohesion of the whole). And here he does get the special warmth without "burning" no one, at least for the majority of the work. The 2nd movement is a shade slow by my standards (and Rach's), but is beautifully played nevertheless. But all the work sings, speaks and dances as something deeply felt and clearly judged.
Concerto 3 - My favorite, hands down, is Janis/Münch on RCA. First of all, Janis is my favorite Rach pianist besides Rach himself, as I said. But here what really seduces me the most is the wonderful integration regarding sound-picture and interplay of piano and orchestra, something extremely important in these works as you pointed out very rightly. The pace is always alive, forward-looking, but reveling in the moment at the same time. Janis's phrasings are a delight, even though the piano recording might be (just a little) too bright compared to real life. But then, this is from 1957 and it's only just a bit too bright, something that the music-making easily makes me forget completely in this case. I also like the colorful Boston Symph, even with imperfections. That crucial lushness and warmth is all there, but not at the expense of the suppleness of orchestration, variety of timbral combinations, etc. Also, for me Janis makes the most marvelous finale entrance, sounding as simultaneously virtuosic, playful and totally idiomatic. What a prodigious musician he was, and it's such a pity that many of his recordings at his peak don't have a better sound picture! If they had, they would be, for me at least, the best Rachmaninov concerto recordings to recommend.
Concerto 4 - I don't have a favorite yet, but probably Wild and Horenstein get my vote again. I prefer them to Michelangeli/Gracis once again because of balance (I can hear more of the interplay with orchestra, right from the beginning with those staccati, so brilliantly written in the texture!) and also for excitement. But I have to listen better to the whole work.
Paganini Rhapsody - haven't got a favorite, because I never listened much to this work (but I do know this is a very serious fault and intend to correct that very soon). Currently, because of my other choices, I've taken a listen to Graffman and Wild, which seem to be, coincidentally, very well regarded from commentators.
Well, I've written a lot. Probably you won't have the time to reply, but... the important thing is that Rachmaninov's music for piano and orchestra is incredible and that everybody should "keep on listening" and sharing.
Cheers!
Thanks for the excellent list. Normally I don't enjoy it when people write long (talking is another matter), but you make a great case and I love all of your choices too.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm honored! :)
Thanks Dave. Can't disagree with your selections, and this is a very difficult one. I can only go with what I have or have listened to reasonably recently, so, not overlapping with you my mentions are
Nr 1 Zimerman/ Ozawa - I thought this was very exciting when it first came out.
Nr 2 Well, I know the opening is so wrong in its slowness, but Richter's also sounds so right! And he was hardly an unserious pyrotechnician.
Nr 3 Appreciate you've concentrated on recommendations in good sound - hence no Rachmaninov recordings- but I have to put in (another, looking below) word for Horowitz. Horowitz/ Reiner hardly has great orchestral sound, but oh man, the playing :) The finale is alarmingly exciting.
Nr 4 Well, on the theory that this was rather neglected, expect a lot of recent recordings are improvements 0 I like Hough, and also Sudbin impressed me.
The Rhapsody is ridiculously difficult to choose. I like Fleisher's recording. Thinking it must be extremely difficult to pivot from the climactic stuff at the end to do that humorous throw-away gesture and a lot of otherwise great pianists can't quite manage. I recall thinking Pletnev did it well, presumably on Virgin classics in the 90s...
I really wish to know your thoughts on the 3 Rach recording of Volodos/Levine live in the Carnegie Hall. For years it was my favorite (until I met with the Argerich, Hough and Janis recordings).
It's very good, but for some reason I don't return to it often.
#"2 Richter/ Wislocki - majestic, sovereign, romantic in the old style; # 3 Horowitz/ Ormandy and NY Phil 1978- breathes history- and very good sound.
What's your take on Weissenberg/Karajan Rach 2 (EMI/Warner)? The Rubinstein version you selected is treasurable. I still recall the way my mother then reacted when she caught me listening to it and remained until the end.
Weissenberg/Karajan? Yech.
I remember that one got "stinker" press right from the get go when first released. If memory serves, the recorded piano sound being pretty unpleasant.
@@americanmultigenic Glenn Gould liked it though. Personally, I think Weissenberg is shown to better advantage in the 3rd. Rather clattery, brittle sounding recording on RCA (1968) . Laconic 1st mvt with Bernstein in the early 80s.
11:48pm I think Van Cliburn's recording of the third has unfortunately faded from view. He was in command of the music right after his return from Russia, but somehow managed to make it sweet and lyrical rather than an Everest to be conquered.
Informative and engaging as usual, Dave. Any plans to talk about the Medtner concertos at some point?
Not soon. They are so marginal.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Really? I'm surprised you would feel that way. In many respects I prefer them, and Medtner's music generally, to Rachmaninoff.
@@nb2816 That's your prerogative, certainly.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Medtner no 2 is absolutely wonderful to my mind. The only reason it isn't extremely popular is that very few people have heard it. (does this make sense?). But blimey, what a concerto, can well stand alongside Rachmaninov no 3.
I haven't heard you mention Yuja Wang.
Great choices right until the Fourth. Among others, I still find myself reaching most often for Richter/DG in No. 2, and I've a very soft spot for the Gilels/EMI or Horowitz/Coates/HMV in No. 3 (as well as Argerich/Chailly). I've never found Michelangeli's chilly wizardry persuasive in the Fourth. It's a fantastic piece, and there are several excellent recordings (not least Rachmaninov's own). I love Wild's Rach Pag , though the one I play most often is Fleisher/Szell which thrills me every time I put it on.
I covered the Rachmaninoff Fourth in my podcast, 1926: A Year in Classical Music, vol. 12. There are three different versions of the score, so I recommend a recording of each. Here is the transcript of that section of my podcast:
“The original ’26 version has been recorded three times (that I know of), the best of these being Yevgeny Subdin’s 2008 performance with the North Carolina Symphony Orchestra and Grant Llewellyn - the conductor who has even more L’s in his last name than I do. Subdin is lithe and agile. You might ask for a bit more muscle than Subdin and North Carolina bring to the recording, but the phrasing is always well-shaped and appropriate from one passage to the next, and it lends the music a sense of continual development where other performers sap its momentum. Subdin’s album comes with a really interesting pairing, too: the Second Piano Concerto of Nikolai Medtner, which was finished in 1927, just the year after Rachmaninoff finished his Fourth. The second of the three versions of the Rachmaninoff is from 1927, after the first round of cuts the composer made to the Fourth. This version has only been commercially recorded only once, by pianist William Black and the Iceland Symphony under Igor Buketoff. Buketoff knew Rachmaninoff personally. He based this performance on extensive discussions they had about the piece, which lends an authenticity to his reading that you have to take seriously. Lastly, we have the final 1941 version of Rachmaninoff’s Fourth, with further cuts and revisions to both the piano part and the orchestration. The best loved of them has been Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli’s 1957 reading with the Philharmonia Orchestra, under Ettore Gracis. The full album pairs the Rachmaninoff with Ravel’s Piano Concerto in G, and is widely considered one of the greatest concerto recordings of all time. The passion and energy Michelangeli brings to this performance are really incredible. He tackles the score aggressively, with very quick tempos but with a style and panache that set his reading above even Earl Wild’s, who’s technically just as impressive. And it may be that an up-tempo approach is best for this paired-down 1941 revision; it may be that slower tempos and introspective efforts to reflect on the music’s architecture don’t work as well with this final version of the score. Some performers and critics have commented that with all the material Rachmaninoff removed from the original with the ’41 version, it doesn’t make nearly as much sense structurally. Stephen Hough’s 2004 recording of the ’41 version is slow and introspective, and I don’t think it works next to Michelangeli’s.
This gives you Evgeny Subdin in the ’26 version, William Black in the ’27 version, and Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli in the ’41 version. Which of these three is best? I don’t think you can choose between them. The fact is there’s no consensus on which of the three versions of the piece is best. Some think Rachmaninoff got the Fourth Piano Concerto right the first time, but the composer didn’t think so, so if you like the ’26 version best you have to say you’re a better judge of the piece than Rachmaninoff himself was. Some think that the second version, the 1927, is the weakest of the three, that it sounds the most “cut,” but Black’s performance of that version made the strongest first impression on me, the first time I listened through all the different recordings of the three versions of the piece. And as for the final 1941 version, most performers respect Rachmaninoff’s final verdict and still use it today, even with the two early versions having recently become available; but maybe Rachmaninoff did get it wrong when he tried to improve this music. Maybe second-guessing and revising the Fourth Concerto years later was as misguided as George Lucas second-guessing and revising the original Star Wars films years later, adding a bunch of CGI aliens and making Greedo shoot first. In the end, I think you have to take each of the three versions of the piece on its own, like you have to treat Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings books and Peter Jackson’s movies as different things. So you get Subdin’s album, Black’s album, and Michelangeli’s album, and you enjoy each of them for their own merits.
Thank you for sharing this.
Absolutely! You’ve put so much of your criticism up on RUclips for free. I subscribed to Classics Today very soon after I discovered the channel, though, as I expect many others have.
Not counting Rachmaninoff's own recordings which are the gold standard, of course:
Concerto No.1 - Janis/Kondrashin
Concerto No.2 - Richter/Wisłocki
Concerto No.3 - Volodos/Levine
and Horowitz/Barbirolli
Concerto No.4 - Michelangeli/Gracis
Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini: Kapell/Reiner
Why "of course?" They are important as the composer's perspective on the works, but are they the best performances of the keyboard part is every case? I don't think so.
@@DavesClassicalGuide "They are important as the composer's perspective on the works, but are they the best performances of the keyboard part is every case? I don't think so."
I'm sorry, but I do think so. Rachmaninoff, as a pianist, was certainly one of the all time greats and his pianism, for me, is a musical marvel. The command, the nobility of his playing, the golden, singing tone, the logic and eloquence of his musical phrases... I don't think that the composer's perspective should be the only one to consider, far from it, but especially in this case, it is certainly the gold standard for me. The only aspect I genuinely dislike about that cycle are the horrendous cuts in the 3rd Concerto. Thank you for the video!
@@DaHeichef Fair enough! You're very welcome.
What do you think about Rachmaninov himself playing his concertos? The reedition on STudio St-Laurent has revealed so much more music than the RCA official.
What's not to like. He's great, the sound is bad, and remastering won't change that.
OK, Cheating. I have three cycles that I enjoy over any other individual releases. And I have no real preference in either #1, #2, #4 or the rhapsody.
The cycles are (not in any particular order):
Ashkenazy/Previn/LSO (Decca)
Shelley/Thomson (Chandos)
Rudy/Jansons (Warner)
And they aren't a million miles apart in interpretation.
They are all interchangably wonderful, with one exception, and that is the 3rd. The relaxation that Shelley brings to it, instead of the usual scarpering through to show off virtuosity, makes hearing it a more meaningful experience than any other I have heard. And I'll stand by that even if the timings were to not bear out what I say (I haven't checked, and I don't even really care). There is an aristocratic sense of rightness here.
About the Ashkenazy set: I never liked the sound of that. That wasn't a CD thing; even the records were not sounding right in my ears. There was a boxiness and/or tinniness that was in contrast with the music's gorgeousness. Note the past tense, though. Because the relatively recently released luxury box set that Decca have issued contains remasters that change all that. I suspect I may grow to love that set more in years to come as a result. Time will tell.
What do you think about the recordings of Zoltán Kocsis with Rachmaninoff's 2nd and 3rd piano concertos? Personally I find them a little too fast but weren't the original tempo markings for these works faster than what they are now played?
Watch the video on complete sets.
@@DavesClassicalGuide
Which particular video are you talking about?
@@chris93703 Have a look at the Rachmaninoff playlist.
#2: Graffman
#3: Bronfman
Paganini: Graffman
i would say for Rach concerti:
1 - Rachmaninoff himself
2 - Tino Marino
3 - Volodos
4 - Rachmaninoff himself
I love Andsnes with Pappano and the Berliner Philharmoniker for 1 & 2.
There's a YT video of the third, performed by Daniil Trifonov that I love to watch and listen to.
I have the Rachmaninov Decca box, with Ashkenazy/Previn doing all 4 and the Rhapsody and also for 1 and 4, your favorites, must be a good box.
C'mon, you have to at least mention that Rach recorded all of these pieces himself, and everybody ought to hear them. Putting those aside, my choices would be:
1. Wild/Horenstein
2. Graffman/Bernstein
3. Wang/Dudamel
4. Ashkenazy/Previn
Rhapsody: Fleisher/Szell
No, I don't. His recordings should be excluded (a) for fairness and (b) because they sound lousy.
@@DavesClassicalGuide A very interesting viewpoint, David. One with which I can partly agree and partly disagree. I DO beleive that the serious Rachmaninoff listener must "visit" them point and give them repeat listens in order to truly discover the true quality of his playing. Conversely, I do agree that the sonic quality cannot be "wished away". Nor should they be seen as definitive just because they were by the composer himself. He openly stated that there were others he felt played certain pieces better than he (Horowitz - 3, Moisewitch -2) in that they brought out aspects that his renditions arguably did not or did so better. Having said that, I think his recording of the 1st still stands up as one of the finest of that work.
I'll have to try to listen to Wang while looking at something besides her playing. Massive talent and - it appears to me - massive ego and theatrics that shout "look how great I am," not "listen to how great the Rach 3 is."
Hi David ~ It's almost impossible for me to present a personal ideal selection without duplicating some of your choices. As I listened to your talk, I predicted you would choose the Janis/Kondrashin 1st and the Michelangeli/ Gracis (does it really matter who the conductor is here?) -- how could it be otherwise? I also completely agree with you re. the Wild/Horenstein Paganini Rhapsody, though I admit I was just slightly surprised with your choice here because of Horenstein. Wild and Horenstein seems an utterly mismatched pairing--two musicians so completely different from one another in just about every way imaginable, and yet their collaboration produces magnificent results throughout the entire set. Who'd've thunk it?
So many outstanding recordings of Nos. 2 and 3; where does one start? Many of my favorite recordings of No. 2 are of historic vintage... Moiseiwitsch/Goehr; Kapell/ Steinberg; and of course Rachmaninoff/Stokowski. Would you consider it a cop-out if I chose Wild/Horenstein for No. 2, Janis/Munch for No. 3, and Kocsis/de Waart for the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini?
Cheers, John Drexel
Hey, as long as you're happy with them!
Some great classics here and some I'd not heard of. Looking forward to diving into Byron Janis for the first time. I've long been a fan of the first concerto, though I was introduced to them all through the Ashkenazy Decca recordings which are good but not superb. I'm a big fan of Zimerman's 1 with Ozawa (paired with 2). Great balance of power and lyricism
Concerto #1 is magnificent IMO. For this particular Concerto I have to name Rachmaninov/ Ormandy as the greatest. The composer plays this one with breathtaking mastery and power!
You asked that we not repeat your choice, but for #4 I have to say that Michelangeli’s playing is super-human. Not only for its dazzling mastery, but it’s color, sophistication and yes, perfection.
Whoops, forgot to insist on leaving out Rachmaninoff's own recordings too! That would be too easy, wouldn't it?
David Hurwitz it would be! As far as I’m concerned, he played his own work better than most others mere mortals could.
How is the sound quality on Rachmaninoff/Ormandy?
@@episodesglow atrocious
My fresh list: I never listen to them. #3, in particular, goes on way too long. #2 is the best piece, I suppose. The composer's own versions are there for historical interest.
David do you have any thoughts on Daniil Trifonov's recording of the 4th piano concerto? Thank you.
I heard it and liked it.