Fun fact: this D-flat major prelude, #24 in his set of preludes in every key, was Rachmaninoff's rewrite of his first prelude, #1 in the set, in C-sharp minor. It uses the exact same musical motifs of his famous "Bells of Moscow" prelude and recontextualizes them in the major key version of C#. He wrote them 18 years apart.
I think Rodriguez is a good Rachmaninoff performer, but I also agree that the Askenazi's performance goes in the best way to Rach's spirit.I vote for him.
I can’t seem to find any recordings of Richter playing this prelude and it disappoints me. I have a feeling his interpretation would be absolutely amazing
again... Richters sectarians. Gilels - genial performer of Rachmaninoff music, not Richter. Emil's performance of 23 n2 - gold standart. he should have recorded a complete cycle of preludes and etudes instead of Ashkenazy.
@@Alex-oy6ss I do love Gilel's interpretations of the Beethoven sonatas and variations, but Richter has far more superior recordings, his Rachmaninoff piano concerto 2 is believed to be the best one along with Zimerman's, his well tempered clavier is the most thought-out and deep of all, he plays Brahms third sonata on a outworld level, so I don't know how one can name people who like Richter's performances sectarians.
@@Alex-oy6ss Your arrogant reduction of Richter fans to "sectarians" makes me think you _might_ just be projecting a tad bit…people can like Richter AND Gilels AND Ashkenazy for different reasons…I sure do.
@@danielzaytsev820 No one has ever said Richters Rach 2 was one of the best interpretations lol. Richter is phenomenal but Gilels was superior to him in a lot of ways. Richter has one of the most versatile and biggest repertoires, but was also more of a live pianist than a recording artist. His Bach WTC is his only good Bach and even then it's played way too fast most of the time. Again, I like Richter a lot, but its very weird how a lot of his fans and admirers need this confirmation that he's certified as a legendary studio recording pianist, when he really isn't and never tried to be. He had a good ear and wasn't afraid to play less known compositions. I wish there were more Gilels recordings, because the comparison between them usually always ends with the Richter fans claiming everything Richter has recorded and Gilels hasn't has to be a piece that Gilels knew not to be able to play better than him, which is a silly mindset.
Berezowsky seems to have made up his own version of the last 2 bars. Somehow cutting out the last half of the penultimate bar. Is this a well-known variant? (Or is an editor to blame?)
There is just so much beauty in depth in this piece. Ashkenazy has it, the others don't. This is going to be my encore at my next recital and, thank God, I play it slower and get right into the guts and gorgeousness of this piece.
I’m learning this, I started and completed the most difficult part (from grave to the end) but I have to say that no one of them has respected the duration of some chords and it’s also noticeable in all the video of this performance. probably because most of the pianists have found not so interesting to go in deep with this marvellous piece. the pedal can’t do the same in therms of harmonics. probably they have no time as me to put their lecture in deep. it requires me 1 month just that part, I haven’t alredy found in youtube a right version. here the best is ashkenazy even if he add too drama also where the hands must be delicate. but he respected the right tempo
I literally started this 7 days ago also, and I've noticed the same thing as well. I don't think the tempo needs to be pulled around, or the durations of some of the notes. I also don't get why so many rush through the return of the main melody to the end... it's virtuosic sounding, sure, but it's the same tempo as the beginning! And there's so much detail, and some lovely harmonies that can be easily missed. That being said I really enjoy Ashkenazy's performance, he takes the Grave marking seriously.
Sean Fogarty yes expecially in grave the upper melody no one is respecting the duration of the highest note of the main theme, in all the video they play as a chord with the correct accent on the upper note and they release the chird using the pedal to make the sense of duration. I know that only a big hand could maintain that note for all the correct time but also with a normal hand, maintaining that note as long as possible before the next chord, will litterary change the perception of all the upper melody). the same also just before the end in the 4 bars with that beautiful theme on the left (as you just told)...ashkenazy put in too much drama and ‘rubato’ and ff instead of f but many other pianist are pushing too much the speed and they totally miss the sense of that beautiful part (so challenging if your right hand can’t handle the sestine staying in the same position...I have to jump around because I can’t play easly a 12ma so I have to play the theme on the right hand in leganto with the pedal as all the other pianists) for my taste the only part where is ‘legal’ to play very fast is the part in ‘vivo’ just before the introduction in ritardando of the ‘grave’.
“They have no time as me to put their lecture in deep.” The brightest sentence ever 🤣 please. They are masters, did you really think this sentence seriously?
@@DavidBallpianist I know, but they have to perform all the preludes and a lot of other pieces during the learning curve. this why their execution goes in deep during their career. but most of them, have to spend less time possible in one single piece. obviously, more you know about all the piano (and orchestral) music, more you learn in deep every particoular piece, but inly few pianists have the opportunity (or the passion) to built their career around a couple of pieces. some complex works (in therms of mysicality not technical skills required to performe) take an entire life of study. obviously only some composers are studied with this deepness... some beethoven late sonatas, some bach major works... rachmaninov is not considered a ‘deep’ composer by the majority of musicians and music critics. for these reasons most executions are considered only a matter of virtuosity or ‘drama’, so much appreciated by the listeners
I know you meant from the Grave of the recapitulation to the end but it's also funny to imagine you meant from the very first bar to the end -- the prelude is devilishly hard throughout I think (technically as well as expressively)
I vote for Santiago Rodriguez; think his interpretation has most integration of this strangely violent, angry (?) prelude of Rachmaninoff--somehow Rodriguez tones down the anger. I know turbulent Russia of Rach's middle years maybe contributed. I started to listen to Berezhovsky on all opus 32 but couldn't--too much pounding. I don't think Ashkenazy's interpretation integrates the disparate parts at all, and I love Ashkenazy.
santiago played op32 n13 brilliant. its not about violent, angry. it is strong declaration, should be played powerfully. dont know why people like so much ashkenazy's recordings. to me vladimir has mediocre technique with much pounding like you say.
@@Alex-oy6ssFrankly to my ears it sounds way too harsh (and I would say almost an heresy) to call Ashkenazy's technique "mediocre", but it must also be reminded/noted that his hands are on the smaller side (iirc they barely span an octave) while this prelude was obviously written by Rachmaninov with his own monstrously huge hands in mind (I mean 12th chords? come on), so Ashkenazy might be actually struggling a bit here.
@@Alex-oy6ss I'm sorry but the hand size is definitely a big part of the point. Plus another part of it are the artistic choices that Ashkenazy made and that I wholeheartedly agree with.
would have liked to have the patience to listen comparatively post Ashkenazi... but, like someone pointed out before me, grave is a powerfully slow indication, and the others' fast tempos kill the piece
Pedro Aguilar the same choice madr by me. you have to skip the second note of the second chord of the right hand. and do the same when you have to repeat the same.and you have to skip the lower note of the third chord on the left and do the same when you have to repeat the same chord
As for not paying attention to "Grave", player can reinterpret, something Rach always did. Frankly, I find this prelude so odd and chaotic it seems stitched together from a number of Rachmaninoff's ideas; many other of Rach's motifs are embedded but really loosely. Still vote for Rodriguez integrating a very nonintegrated piece.
Yeah I think he meant how can you poco piu vivo that excerpt when you're almost full speed already. Or maybe he meant for Ashkenazy to speed his ass up.
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact: this D-flat major prelude, #24 in his set of preludes in every key, was Rachmaninoff's rewrite of his first prelude, #1 in the set, in C-sharp minor. It uses the exact same musical motifs of his famous "Bells of Moscow" prelude and recontextualizes them in the major key version of C#. He wrote them 18 years apart.
Very cool! Thanks for that note
I think Rodriguez is a good Rachmaninoff performer, but I also agree that the Askenazi's performance goes in the best way to Rach's spirit.I vote for him.
The final section by Rodriguez is just something else.
I prefer Ashkenazy's slower, more deliberate interpretation as well - thank you for the posting and the insightful commentary
Alexis Weissenberg has by far the best interpretation of this piece.
From all the versions I listened to, I think only Ashkenazy really understands this Prelude
Have you tried Lugansky?
@@helenlundeberg yes I have, but I for this piece I absolutely prefer Ashkenazy
john browning
I can’t seem to find any recordings of Richter playing this prelude and it disappoints me. I have a feeling his interpretation would be absolutely amazing
again... Richters sectarians. Gilels - genial performer of Rachmaninoff music, not Richter. Emil's performance of 23 n2 - gold standart. he should have recorded a complete cycle of preludes and etudes instead of Ashkenazy.
@@Alex-oy6ss ...and?
@@Alex-oy6ss I do love Gilel's interpretations of the Beethoven sonatas and variations, but Richter has far more superior recordings, his Rachmaninoff piano concerto 2 is believed to be the best one along with Zimerman's, his well tempered clavier is the most thought-out and deep of all, he plays Brahms third sonata on a outworld level, so I don't know how one can name people who like Richter's performances sectarians.
@@Alex-oy6ss Your arrogant reduction of Richter fans to "sectarians" makes me think you _might_ just be projecting a tad bit…people can like Richter AND Gilels AND Ashkenazy for different reasons…I sure do.
@@danielzaytsev820 No one has ever said Richters Rach 2 was one of the best interpretations lol. Richter is phenomenal but Gilels was superior to him in a lot of ways. Richter has one of the most versatile and biggest repertoires, but was also more of a live pianist than a recording artist. His Bach WTC is his only good Bach and even then it's played way too fast most of the time. Again, I like Richter a lot, but its very weird how a lot of his fans and admirers need this confirmation that he's certified as a legendary studio recording pianist, when he really isn't and never tried to be. He had a good ear and wasn't afraid to play less known compositions. I wish there were more Gilels recordings, because the comparison between them usually always ends with the Richter fans claiming everything Richter has recorded and Gilels hasn't has to be a piece that Gilels knew not to be able to play better than him, which is a silly mindset.
Berezowsky seems to have made up his own version of the last 2 bars. Somehow cutting out the last half of the penultimate bar. Is this a well-known variant? (Or is an editor to blame?)
I haven't heard anyone else play this so it must be boris doing it
I think it's just Boris being Boris lol
There is just so much beauty in depth in this piece. Ashkenazy has it, the others don't. This is going to be my encore at my next recital and, thank God, I play it slower and get right into the guts and gorgeousness of this piece.
I’m learning this, I started and completed the most difficult part (from grave to the end) but I have to say that no one of them has respected the duration of some chords and it’s also noticeable in all the video of this performance. probably because most of the pianists have found not so interesting to go in deep with this marvellous piece. the pedal can’t do the same in therms of harmonics. probably they have no time as me to put their lecture in deep. it requires me 1 month just that part, I haven’t alredy found in youtube a right version. here the best is ashkenazy even if he add too drama also where the hands must be delicate. but he respected the right tempo
I literally started this 7 days ago also, and I've noticed the same thing as well. I don't think the tempo needs to be pulled around, or the durations of some of the notes.
I also don't get why so many rush through the return of the main melody to the end... it's virtuosic sounding, sure, but it's the same tempo as the beginning! And there's so much detail, and some lovely harmonies that can be easily missed.
That being said I really enjoy Ashkenazy's performance, he takes the Grave marking seriously.
Sean Fogarty yes expecially in grave the upper melody no one is respecting the duration of the highest note of the main theme, in all the video they play as a chord with the correct accent on the upper note and they release the chird
using the pedal to make the sense of duration. I know that only a big hand could maintain that note for all the correct time but also with a normal hand, maintaining that note as long as possible before the next chord, will litterary change the perception of all the upper melody). the same also just before the end in the 4 bars with that beautiful theme on the left (as you just told)...ashkenazy put in too much drama and ‘rubato’ and ff instead of f but many other pianist are pushing too much the speed and they totally miss the sense of that beautiful part (so challenging if your right hand can’t handle the sestine staying in the same position...I have to jump around because I can’t play easly a 12ma so I have to play the theme on the right hand in leganto with the pedal as all the other pianists) for my taste the only part where is ‘legal’ to play very fast is the part in ‘vivo’ just before the introduction in ritardando of the ‘grave’.
“They have no time as me to put their lecture in deep.” The brightest sentence ever 🤣 please. They are masters, did you really think this sentence seriously?
@@DavidBallpianist I know, but they have to perform all the preludes and a
lot of other pieces during the learning curve. this why their execution goes in deep during their career. but most of them, have to spend less time possible in one single piece. obviously, more you know about all the piano (and orchestral) music, more you learn in deep every particoular piece, but inly few pianists have the opportunity (or the passion) to built their career around a couple of pieces. some complex works (in therms of mysicality not technical skills required to performe) take an entire life of study. obviously only some composers are studied with this deepness... some beethoven late sonatas, some bach major works... rachmaninov is not considered a ‘deep’ composer by the majority of musicians and music critics. for these reasons
most executions are considered only a matter of virtuosity or ‘drama’, so much appreciated by the listeners
I know you meant from the Grave of the recapitulation to the end but it's also funny to imagine you meant from the very first bar to the end -- the prelude is devilishly hard throughout I think (technically as well as expressively)
You share nice videos!
I used to have Weissenberg’s recording. He played this amazing fast.
I vote for Santiago Rodriguez; think his interpretation has most integration of this strangely violent, angry (?) prelude of Rachmaninoff--somehow Rodriguez tones down the anger. I know turbulent Russia of Rach's middle years maybe contributed. I started to listen to Berezhovsky on all opus 32 but couldn't--too much pounding. I don't think Ashkenazy's interpretation integrates the disparate parts at all, and I love Ashkenazy.
santiago played op32 n13 brilliant. its not about violent, angry. it is strong declaration, should be played powerfully. dont know why people like so much ashkenazy's recordings. to me vladimir has mediocre technique with much pounding like you say.
@@Alex-oy6ssFrankly to my ears it sounds way too harsh (and I would say almost an heresy) to call Ashkenazy's technique "mediocre", but it must also be reminded/noted that his hands are on the smaller side (iirc they barely span an octave) while this prelude was obviously written by Rachmaninov with his own monstrously huge hands in mind (I mean 12th chords? come on), so Ashkenazy might be actually struggling a bit here.
@@TheSummoner small hands isnt the point. listen to pletnev. just a different level.
@@Alex-oy6ss I'm sorry but the hand size is definitely a big part of the point. Plus another part of it are the artistic choices that Ashkenazy made and that I wholeheartedly agree with.
🙏
would have liked to have the patience to listen comparatively post Ashkenazi... but, like someone pointed out before me, grave is a powerfully slow indication, and the others' fast tempos kill the piece
Cómo hace Berezovsky para hacer los últimos acordes??
ajajajjaa tiempo . quiero ver nomas xd
stefano gaston Lencina 14:19 esos acordes cualquier humano los haría arpegiados porque no les alcanza la mano para tocarlo. No sé cómo hace
Pedro Aguilar the same choice madr by me. you have to skip the second note of the second chord of the right hand. and do the same when you have to repeat the same.and you have to skip the lower note of the third chord on the left and do the same when you have to repeat the same chord
As for not paying attention to "Grave", player can reinterpret, something Rach always did. Frankly, I find this prelude so odd and chaotic it seems stitched together from a number of Rachmaninoff's ideas; many other of Rach's motifs are embedded but really loosely. Still vote for Rodriguez integrating a very nonintegrated piece.
you just didnt get the idea of this prelude. its absolutely genial. like the rest preludes & etudes.
It's my favourite prelude. There are many different dissonant harmonies and rubato-like complex chords which sounds epic and formidably
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
My vote to Rodriguez
Ashkenazy is best
"poco piu vivo" wtf bro
Little more lively?
Yeah I think he meant how can you poco piu vivo that excerpt when you're almost full speed already. Or maybe he meant for Ashkenazy to speed his ass up.
@@helenlundeberg imo Rachmaninoff puts so many "vivo"s everywhere that it really gets pointless
コンチェルトおわたらこれやってみよ
Lisztian pianistic orgasm by Santiago
Rodriguez absolutely murdering Rachmaninov. For those that don't know Grave is the absolute slowest tempo that exists.
Rodriguez played it in Rachm. powerfull style. Like Rachmaninoff used to say: "tempo indications are relative thing".
@@Alex-oy6ss So what you're saying is the Grave is Allegro. Okay.
I think that the slowest tempo is not what suits to this prelude..
@@Alex-oy6ss but then Rachmaninov did. I think I'll believe him.
@Arpice Music I will refrain from insulting you. lol
Very difficult prelude