I've never understood why ANYONE would prefer the original cadenza. The ossia cadenza is monumental and iconic. The argument that people make is that it "overshadows" the rest of the piece - but to me that just means you have too little faith in the magic of the rest of the Concerto!
In my personal opinion, it's not about "overshadowing" the rest of the piece; the ossia cadenza feels like something entirely separate from the rest of the concerto, especially given the context from which it emerges. By making the cadenza too "big" right from the get go, with its fistfuls of chords, it takes away from the coherence of the movement and from the sensation of a big, mounting crescendo right up to the D major outburst. But, of course, I'm being VERY picky here; both cadenzas are absolutely amazing in their own ways, and I would absolutely love to play even one of them half as good as Yunchan.
The Ossia is the original. Rachmaninoff himself changed his mind and inserted the edited version as part of the main score. Dr Ben Laude said it in Tonebase Piano's review of Yunchan's performance.
I think it has a lot to do with the overall structure for a given interpretation. If I'm not mistaken we only have recordings of him playing the toccata version. But he wrote the ossia one as well, and if I'm not mistaken he preferred that one. What I would personally say is that each cadenza is almost like a word you can insert into a sentence, and even though everything else in the sentence remains the same, the overall meaning is changed. How the cadenza is handled and which one is played can be used as a tool by pianists to really shape their performance and overall interpretation. I liked the ossia when I was younger (the drama! the classic Rachmaninoff heavy chords filled with passion!) and I greatly appreciate the toccata now that I'm older (the structure! the classic Rachmaninoff scherzo!). I think this is demonstrated by how often you hear "I preferred this cadenza until I heard so and so play the other" and vice versa. Who's playing and how's it played means both be can be played incredibly and to great effect.
The Ossia is extremely powerful and emotional. But the original is more in context with the rest of the 1st movement. With that being said, I far prefer the Ossia.
The oasis cadenza is a force of nature. But the regular one feels more personal. Almost like a madness building up inside a person until it finally bursts out when the two cadenzas converge. It’s a completely different effect, and I don’t see it as inferior to the oasis at all- just more personal.
![Ravel - Sonatine [Seong-Jin Cho]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NlGuueSp3oA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Liszt - Transcendental Etude No. 9 'Ricordanza' [Yejin Noh]](/img/1.gif)
I heard that recording of the ossia live and I was genuinely tweaking in my seat because of how good it was
There is such clarity and contrast in the ossia cadenza
A talent that only God can give. Love this bloke
no talent all work bud
@@alna9681bet you got no talent 😆
no talent, just years of practice. it could have been you, but you decided to do other stuff instead.
Talent only many thousands of hours of practice can produce...
The Ossia Cadenza surely sounds magnificent on its own, much easier to digest like this.
I've never understood why ANYONE would prefer the original cadenza. The ossia cadenza is monumental and iconic.
The argument that people make is that it "overshadows" the rest of the piece - but to me that just means you have too little faith in the magic of the rest of the Concerto!
In my personal opinion, it's not about "overshadowing" the rest of the piece; the ossia cadenza feels like something entirely separate from the rest of the concerto, especially given the context from which it emerges. By making the cadenza too "big" right from the get go, with its fistfuls of chords, it takes away from the coherence of the movement and from the sensation of a big, mounting crescendo right up to the D major outburst. But, of course, I'm being VERY picky here; both cadenzas are absolutely amazing in their own ways, and I would absolutely love to play even one of them half as good as Yunchan.
The Ossia is the original. Rachmaninoff himself changed his mind and inserted the edited version as part of the main score. Dr Ben Laude said it in Tonebase Piano's review of Yunchan's performance.
I think it has a lot to do with the overall structure for a given interpretation. If I'm not mistaken we only have recordings of him playing the toccata version. But he wrote the ossia one as well, and if I'm not mistaken he preferred that one. What I would personally say is that each cadenza is almost like a word you can insert into a sentence, and even though everything else in the sentence remains the same, the overall meaning is changed. How the cadenza is handled and which one is played can be used as a tool by pianists to really shape their performance and overall interpretation. I liked the ossia when I was younger (the drama! the classic Rachmaninoff heavy chords filled with passion!) and I greatly appreciate the toccata now that I'm older (the structure! the classic Rachmaninoff scherzo!). I think this is demonstrated by how often you hear "I preferred this cadenza until I heard so and so play the other" and vice versa. Who's playing and how's it played means both be can be played incredibly and to great effect.
The Ossia is extremely powerful and emotional. But the original is more in context with the rest of the 1st movement.
With that being said, I far prefer the Ossia.
The oasis cadenza is a force of nature. But the regular one feels more personal. Almost like a madness building up inside a person until it finally bursts out when the two cadenzas converge. It’s a completely different effect, and I don’t see it as inferior to the oasis at all- just more personal.