Cliburn and Rach's 3rd - advise pls
Bob Lombard
Concerto, being familiar and delighted with his performance of the 2nd with
Reiner/CSO (1962). He came up the RCA Red Seal CD of the 1958 Carnegie Hall
performance with Kondrashin/Symphony of the Air. This seems curiously flat
and uninspired to me. Maybe he was played out at that time - '58 was a real
busy year for him.
I have heard the much publicized Argerich performance (which I consider
enthusiastic but uneven), and two Horowitz performances, which display
awesome technique and flare; too much display of technique at the expense of
interpretation.
So what I am hoping you folks can do, is tell me of other recorded
performances by Cliburn of this work. Current availability is important but
not crucial.
TIA
bl
Neil
wrote:
>I have heard the much publicized Argerich performance (which I consider
>enthusiastic but uneven), and two Horowitz performances, which display
>awesome technique and flare; too much display of technique at the expense of
>interpretation.
For my tastes Horowitz is just too overwhelmingly dextrous. I much prefer the
slow grand approach to this concerto as embodied in the Cliburn recording...and
Sokolov's live performances (awesome). Horowitz seems to miss something of the
"2nd symphony feel" in Rachmaninov. I've never managed to express precisely what
I mean by this but something along the lines of a longing sadness of excile.
vladimir
>I asked a friend to loan a Cliburn performance of Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano
>Concerto, being familiar and delighted with his performance of the 2nd with
>Reiner/CSO (1962). He came up the RCA Red Seal CD of the 1958 Carnegie Hall
>performance with Kondrashin/Symphony of the Air. This seems curiously flat
>and uninspired to me. Maybe he was played out at that time - '58 was a real
>busy year for him.
>
>performances by Cliburn of this work. Current availability is important
but
>not crucial.
>
Tchaikovsky
competition in Moscow was superior to his recording, and in the minds of
some
who actually heard it, to all other accounts. Presumably the tape of this
exists,
but I don't think a recording has ever been commercially released.
- Phil Caron
Bob Lombard
>overwhelming by its finish. It's still my favorite version. Many
>others, however, agree with you. To each his own.
Now I have to listen to it again; hate to think I'm missing something.
>
>You may prefer Janis/Munch on RCA. I also like (among others)
>the version in Orozco's complete set ("big" cadenza) and
>Gutierrez on Chandos ("standard" cadenza; the accompanying
>2nd isn't in the same class).
I have the Janis/Munch, and like it. Am unfamiliar with those other guys.
>
>-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
>---------------------------------------------------------
bl
Rob Woronuk
vod...@aol.comjunkfree says...
>You may prefer Janis/Munch on RCA.
I was a big Janis fan and with the Great Pianists CDs and his EMI CD of Chopin
and Liszt, I am in the process of rediscovering his awesome talent and music -
particularly his sense of control. I have his Mercury recording of the Rach 3
with Dorati/LSO but not his Munch on RCA. If you also have the Dorati, how
does it compare with the Munch? (And the Mercury vs RCA?)
...Rob
Grant Wood
> I think it's a broad reading that gradually picks up steam and is
> overwhelming by its finish. It's still my favorite version. Many
> others, however, agree with you. To each his own.
I agree. It is a broad, lush and romantic reading. This recording is
in my top three favorites along with Argerich/Chailly and
Horowitz/Coates. I think the Argerich recording is a good meld of the
Horowitz and Cliburn interpretations.
The only thing about the Cliburn that is a bit bothersome are the
just-a-bit-too-frequent occurences of wrong notes in the cadenza.
Grant
Sol L. Siegel
>I asked a friend to loan a Cliburn performance of Rachmaninov's
>3rd Piano Concerto... He came up the RCA Red Seal CD of the 1958 >Carnegie
Hall performance with Kondrashin/Symphony of the Air.
>This seems curiously flat and uninspired to me. Maybe he was
>played out at that time - '58 was a real busy year for him.
I think it's a broad reading that gradually picks up steam and is
overwhelming by its finish. It's still my favorite version. Many
others, however, agree with you. To each his own.
You may prefer Janis/Munch on RCA. I also like (among others)
the version in Orozco's complete set ("big" cadenza) and
Gutierrez on Chandos ("standard" cadenza; the accompanying
2nd isn't in the same class).
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
---------------------------------------------------------
"Any statement that begins with 'Everybody knows' is probably inaccurate."
(Remove "junkfree" from the end of my e-mail address to reply.)
td
>I asked a friend to loan a Cliburn performance of Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano
>Concerto, being familiar and delighted with his performance of the 2nd with
>Reiner/CSO (1962). He came up the RCA Red Seal CD of the 1958 Carnegie Hall
>performance with Kondrashin/Symphony of the Air. This seems curiously flat
>and uninspired to me. Maybe he was played out at that time - '58 was a real
>busy year for him.
>
>I have heard the much publicized Argerich performance (which I consider
>enthusiastic but uneven), and two Horowitz performances, which display
>awesome technique and flare; too much display of technique at the expense of
>interpretation.
Actually, I find Cliburn's commercial recording of Concerto #2 to be weaker
than the live recording of Concerto #3 on RCA/Philips GP series. Do recall
that the concert performance which RCA officially released took place about 1
month after the Tchaikovsky Competition and kicked off his so-called victory
tour. While the previous month was surely exhausting for Cliburn, I doubt he
was "played out." Cliburn has a tendency to lean towards leisurely tempi and
often tones down the dynamics in the recording studio, unfortunately. As for
the live Rach #3, I believe it was Cliburn's decision (along with Jack
Pfeiffer) not to make a studio recording to supplant the live performance, as
was the case with the Tchaikovsky #1. Therefore, it is safe to say that this
recording is true to Cliburn's conception of the work.
While I can see how some could view the Cliburn performance as "flat" or
"uninspired," especially when juxtaposed against the flashier and more
technique-conscious competition (though here Cliburn certainly lacks neither
flash nor technique), there is an expansiveness to this performance of #3 that
reveals, for lack of betters terms, not only tension, but also melancholy. I
believe Horowitz and Argerich lean heavily towards the former (from this lot I
prefer Horowitz/Barbirolli, which is at the extreme interpretive end) while
Cliburn towards the latter. Naturally there is no correct approach, but
Cliburn's just seems right.
That said, the single greatest performance of Concerto #3 that I have ever
heard is (no, not Helfgott's!) Cliburn's from the concerto round of the
Tchaikovsky Competition. The performance is better paced (probably about 3-4
minutes faster) than the Carnegie Hall performance on the commercial release,
Cliburn plays with a bit more fire and spontaneity (check out the cadenza,
wrong notes and all!), and Kondrashin's Moscow Philharmonic is in fine form (no
flubbed notes in the brass section). For me, this performance represents an
ideal balance between flare and grandeur and remains my favorite of this work.
--td
Grant Wood
> That said, the single greatest performance of Concerto #3 that I have ever
> heard is (no, not Helfgott's!) Cliburn's from the concerto round of the
> Tchaikovsky Competition. The performance is better paced (probably about 3-4
> minutes faster) than the Carnegie Hall performance on the commercial release,
> Cliburn plays with a bit more fire and spontaneity (check out the cadenza,
> wrong notes and all!), and Kondrashin's Moscow Philharmonic is in fine form (no
> flubbed notes in the brass section). For me, this performance represents an
> ideal balance between flare and grandeur and remains my favorite of this work.
Has this ever been commercially released? If so; when, where and what
label?
If not, how did you happen upon hearing it (just curious). Thanks.
Grant
Bob Orr
Sol L. Siegel wrote:
> You may prefer Janis/Munch on RCA. I also like (among others)
> the version in Orozco's complete set ("big" cadenza) and
> Gutierrez on Chandos ("standard" cadenza; the accompanying
> 2nd isn't in the same class).
Caught Guttierrez live with Leppard and the Indianapolis Symphony in a
spectacular performance - absolutely shimmering; his choice of tempi suit this
rather gargantuan piece. Played on the quick side, Horacio's interpretation
breathes real life into a piece which (for me at least) has its ponderous and
tedious moments. Hopefully, the live performance will make it onto the next
series of "Indianapolis on the Air" broadcasts and should it, get your tape
recorders out. It is a performance not to be missed. It is even better than
his new release with the Pittsburgh - but maybe that is due to the exhilaration
one tends to experience with a truly masterful live performance.
Bob Orr
--
"The game's easy Harry!" -- Richie Ashburn (1927-1997)
"The less we understand a thing, the more variables we need to explain it." -
Russell Ackoff
Carl Tait
Bob Lombard <blombard*@vermontel.net> wrote:
>I asked a friend to loan a Cliburn performance of Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano
>and uninspired to me. Maybe he was played out at that time - '58 was a real
>busy year for him.
It's a controversial recording: it's *the* favorite "Rach 3" for many;
a rather sluggish reading for many others. I'm in the latter camp, though
I find Cliburn's Second Concerto enjoyable and his Second Sonata terrific.
>I have heard the much publicized Argerich performance (which I consider
>enthusiastic but uneven),
Same here. Despite my general awe of Argerich, I find this recording
so relentlessly played for excitement that -- paradoxically -- it ends
up being less exciting than many other versions.
>and two Horowitz performances, which display
>awesome technique and flare; too much display of technique at the expense of
>interpretation.
Horowitz/Barbirolli is the best of the lot, IMO. It's available on an
APR CD (with notes by Michael Glover) after circulating on tape among
collectors for many years.
>So what I am hoping you folks can do, is tell me of other recorded
>performances by Cliburn of this work. Current availability is important but
>not crucial.
There's a rare LP that Cliburn made with a no-name orchestra
(some summer music camp, as I remember); I've never heard it.
In addition to Horowitz/Barbirolli, I'd recommend Gavrilov/Lazarev
(*not* the later recording with Muti), Berman/Abbado (with the warning
that some people don't like it much), and Gilels/Cluytens.
The rock-bottom recordings are Sgouros and (of course) Helfgott.
Sgouros is more offensive since he possesses brilliant technique
yet still manages to mutilate the piece quite effectively.
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
paulgo...@my-deja.com
2, but I find the Eresko/Provatorov performance on RCA Classical
Navigator to be superb, the best Rach 3 overall I've heard.
--
Paul Goldstein
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Matthew B. Tepper
ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu pondered what I'm pondering as follows...
>
>There's a rare LP that Cliburn made with a no-name orchestra
>(some summer music camp, as I remember); I've never heard it.
Could this have been Interlochen? Remember, he also made a recording
for RCA where he *conducted* their orchestra and chorus in Ralph Vaughan
Williams' "Serenade to Music," of all things.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
td
>> That said, the single greatest performance of Concerto #3 that I have ever
>> heard is (no, not Helfgott's!) Cliburn's from the concerto round of the
>> Tchaikovsky Competition. The performance is better paced (probably about
>3-4
>> minutes faster) than the Carnegie Hall performance on the commercial
>release,
>> Cliburn plays with a bit more fire and spontaneity (check out the cadenza,
>> wrong notes and all!), and Kondrashin's Moscow Philharmonic is in fine form
>(no
>> flubbed notes in the brass section). For me, this performance represents
>an
>> ideal balance between flare and grandeur and remains my favorite of this
>work.
Grant asked:
>Has this ever been commercially released? If so; when, where and what
>label?
I believe this recording was released on a Melodiya LP. Unfortunately, I do
not own it and can not provide any further details. There is a vast treasury
of fine Cliburn recordings from his time in the USSR which might eventually see
the light of day after years of neglect , but perhaps this is too much to
expect from BMG since they are obviously too preoccupied with, among other
irritating endeavors, constructing huge boxes of rereleased collections that
can not and will not be split up and sold separately.
It is worth noting that this particular performance by Van Cliburn of the
Rachmaninoff Concerto #3 allegedly reduced jury panelist Sviatoslav Richter to
tears. Per Richter's custom of not performing works which he found to have
been played by others to his complete satisfaction (though surely there must
have been some exceptions, especially given Richter's appreciation of and
familiarity with Sofronitzki and the huge overlap in their repetoires),
Cliburn's competition performance apparently nixed any possibility of a Richter
performance/recording of this work. What a pity!
--td
Sol L. Siegel
writes:
>Now I have to listen to it again; hate to think I'm missing
>something.
Don't do it just on my account. I remember the
critical hoopla for the Ashkenazy/Ormandy version
in the '70s. I had been at one of the concert
performances on which the recording was based and
thought it a snooze. I listened to the LP three times,
each time wondering what *I* was missing,
until I
finally decided that whatever I was missing just wasn't
there for me. It happens.
Dan Koren
Carl Tait <ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>In article <rrdt93...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Bob Lombard <blombard*@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
>>I have heard the much publicized Argerich performance (which I consider
>>enthusiastic but uneven),
>
>Same here. Despite my general awe of Argerich, I find this recording
>so relentlessly played for excitement that -- paradoxically -- it ends
>up being less exciting than many other versions.
A much better performance in a similar style is Viktor Merzhanov's.
dk
Bob Lombard
bl
Carl Tait
Matthew B. Tepper <ducky兀deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>>[Carl Tait wrote:]
>>There's a rare LP that Cliburn made with a no-name orchestra
>>(some summer music camp, as I remember); I've never heard it.
>
>Could this have been Interlochen?
Bingo! Here's the full info from Scott Colebank's discography:
Van Cliburn, A. Clyde Roller / National High School Orchestra.
Live stereo recording, made in 1962 at Interlochen.
Timings: 16:44, 10:26, 13:58 = 41:08. No cuts, big cadenza.
LP: National Music Camp NMC-1962-2S
"Note: bad splices occur at 3:23 and 3:48 of second movement."
For comparison, the timings in the commonly-available recording
(Kondrashin/Symphony of the Air) are 17:26, 10:38, 14:54 = 42:58.
Colebank also lists the April 1958 recording mentioned by "td":
Cliburn, Kondrashin/Moscow SO. 18:18 (!), 11:07, 15:05 = 44:30.
LP: Melodiya D 04330/1. Mono recording.
Colebank's ratings for the three performances (1-5 scale; 1 is best) are
Moscow 2, Carnegie 1, Interlochen 3. It's a coincidence that the ratings
are 1, 2, and 3; they all could have been 1 (or 4). The Moscow is
rarity 4 (long out of print and hard to find); the Interlochen is
rarity 5 (never seen offered in 15 years of searching).
BrtherJohn
>
>In addition to Horowitz/Barbirolli, I'd recommend Gavrilov/Lazarev
>(*not* the later recording with Muti), Berman/Abbado (with the warning
>that some people don't like it much), and Gilels/Cluytens.
>
>The rock-bottom recordings are Sgouros and (of course) Helfgott.
>Sgouros is more offensive since he possesses brilliant technique
>yet still manages to mutilate the piece quite effectively.
>
The best, if not only good thing about the Sgouros recording is the first
movement big cadenza, which is pretty amazing for a 13 year old! I would
definitely rank the latter Gavrilov/Muti near the bottom. It's pretty bad.
Shockingly so.
Brthe...@aol.com (John Blair)
Owen Hartnett
<o...@tech.iupui.edu> wrote:
> Sol L. Siegel wrote:
>
> > You may prefer Janis/Munch on RCA. I also like (among others)
> > the version in Orozco's complete set ("big" cadenza) and
> > Gutierrez on Chandos ("standard" cadenza; the accompanying
> > 2nd isn't in the same class).
> Caught Guttierrez live with Leppard and the Indianapolis Symphony in a
> spectacular performance - absolutely shimmering; his choice of tempi suit this
> rather gargantuan piece. Played on the quick side, Horacio's interpretation
> breathes real life into a piece which (for me at least) has its ponderous and
> tedious moments. Hopefully, the live performance will make it onto the next
> series of "Indianapolis on the Air" broadcasts and should it, get your tape
> recorders out. It is a performance not to be missed. It is even better than
> his new release with the Pittsburgh - but maybe that is due to the
exhilaration
> one tends to experience with a truly masterful live performance.
I'll agree on Gutierrez's performances. I've heard him do it live twice,
and both times it was edge of your seat, "wake up this pianist is really
something" performances. The recording with Maazel is excellent, and I'd
recommend it to someone who wants a great recording in recent sound
(rather than Horowitz's Reiner account). I believe there's a video
available as well ( at least there was on PBS quite a few years ago, with
Previn).
-Owen
Francis BUGNARD
He recorded the rach3, 2 times.
The second one (with Bernstein) is just interesting. It is available in CD.
But I find the first one (with Pretre and Chicago) sounds extremely good.
The tempo is very fast, but we may hear every note very clearly.
The cadenza is marvellous.
Does somebody has an opnion on this recording ? (Unfortunately not -yet?-
published in CD)
Thank you for your comments.
PS. By the way, I am not a fan of Weissenberg for his other
recordings.
******************
Bob Lombard <blombard*@vermontel.net> a écrit dans le message :
rrdt93...@corp.supernews.com...
> I asked a friend to loan a Cliburn performance of Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano
> Concerto, being familiar and delighted with his performance of the 2nd
with
> Reiner/CSO (1962). He came up the RCA Red Seal CD of the 1958 Carnegie
Hall
> performance with Kondrashin/Symphony of the Air. This seems curiously flat
> and uninspired to me. Maybe he was played out at that time - '58 was a
real
> busy year for him.
>
> I have heard the much publicized Argerich performance (which I consider
> enthusiastic but uneven), and two Horowitz performances, which display
> awesome technique and flare; too much display of technique at the expense
of
> interpretation.
>
> So what I am hoping you folks can do, is tell me of other recorded
> performances by Cliburn of this work. Current availability is important
but
> not crucial.
>
> TIA
>
> bl
>
>
td
>>>There's a rare LP that Cliburn made with a no-name orchestra
>>>(some summer music camp, as I remember); I've never heard it.
>Bingo! Here's the full info from Scott Colebank's discography:
>
>Van Cliburn, A. Clyde Roller / National High School Orchestra.
>Live stereo recording, made in 1962 at Interlochen.
>Timings: 16:44, 10:26, 13:58 = 41:08. No cuts, big cadenza.
>LP: National Music Camp NMC-1962-2S
>"Note: bad splices occur at 3:23 and 3:48 of second movement."
>
>For comparison, the timings in the commonly-available recording
>(Kondrashin/Symphony of the Air) are 17:26, 10:38, 14:54 = 42:58.
>
>Colebank also lists the April 1958 recording mentioned by "td":
>Cliburn, Kondrashin/Moscow SO. 18:18 (!), 11:07, 15:05 = 44:30.
>LP: Melodiya D 04330/1. Mono recording.
Thanks to Carl for posting this information. However, I must point out that
Colebank's timings for the April 1958 Moscow performance are way off. Indeed,
if the competition performance were as sluggish as Colebank's timings indicate,
then perhaps Richter would have been brought to tears not because the
performance was so great but because it was so slow! :)
While listening to this performance today, I did my own personal timings, the
unofficial results of which are as follows:
First Movement 16:23
Second Movement 10:00
Third Movement 13:39 w/o applause (note that the RCA version's timing of this
movement, excluding applause, is 14:31)
Total time of the April 1958 Moscow performance minus applause=40:03 (Total
time of the May 1958 Carnegie Hall performance minus applause=42:35)
My timings should be accurate to within a second or two, though I naturally
welcome any corrections.
>Colebank's ratings for the three performances (1-5 scale; 1 is best) >are
Moscow 2, Carnegie 1, Interlochen 3. It's a coincidence that >the ratings are
1, 2, and 3; they all could have been 1 (or 4). The >Moscow is rarity 4 (long
out of print and hard to find); the >Interlochen is rarity 5 (never seen
offered in 15 years of >searching).
As I said in a previous post, because of its faster pace and Cliburn's fiery
playing, I find the Moscow performance to be superior in almost every respect
to the Carnegie Hall performance. I have not heard the performance released on
Interlochen, but I would *graciously* welcome the opportunity to do so (the
same goes for any other worthwhile live Cliburn material).
--td
samir ghiocel golescu
On 19 Aug 1999, td wrote:
> As I said in a previous post, because of its faster pace and Cliburn's fiery
> playing, I find the Moscow performance to be superior in almost every respect
> to the Carnegie Hall performance. I have not heard the performance released on
> Interlochen, but I would *graciously* welcome the opportunity to do so (the
> same goes for any other worthwhile live Cliburn material).
I'msorry Ican not provide these materials but I hope you possess the live
1972 recordings--RCA published only Brahms 2nd,Grieg and Rachm.Rhapsody.
THAT SR Second Concerto -- slow but better than fast -- is simply amazing,
like a phenomenon of the nature.
regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
Rob Woronuk wrote in message <37b7...@news.cadvision.com>...
>
Chopin
>and Liszt, I am in the process of rediscovering his awesome talent and
music -
>particularly his sense of control. I have his Mercury recording of the
Rach 3
>with Dorati/LSO but not his Munch on RCA. If you also have the Dorati, how
>does it compare with the Munch? (And the Mercury vs RCA?)
>
>...Rob
>
listened to it today. The performance with Munch is very good. This one with
Dorati is great. You should arrange to copy your recording to CD-R, then put
the original in a safe-deposit box. Bequeath(sp) it to your most valued
relative.
bl
Matt Kennel
:In article <37B832FD...@tech.iupui.edu>, Bob Orr
:<o...@tech.iupui.edu> wrote:
:> Caught Guttierrez live with Leppard and the Indianapolis Symphony in a
:> spectacular performance - absolutely shimmering; his choice of tempi suit this
:> rather gargantuan piece. Played on the quick side, Horacio's interpretation
:> breathes real life into a piece which (for me at least) has its ponderous and
:> tedious moments. Hopefully, the live performance will make it onto the next
:> series of "Indianapolis on the Air" broadcasts and should it, get your tape
:> recorders out. It is a performance not to be missed. It is even better than
:> his new release with the Pittsburgh - but maybe that is due to the
:exhilaration
:> one tends to experience with a truly masterful live performance.
:
:I'll agree on Gutierrez's performances. I've heard him do it live twice,
:and both times it was edge of your seat, "wake up this pianist is really
:something" performances.
I also heard him on a live performance via an NPR station. Indeed it was
as you described; it would be great to see him in person.
Unfortunately I had the gall to put on the transcendent ultra-live
Argerich recording immediately after, while the Gutierrez was still in
my mind.
By the way, I'm one of those people who rather loathed the Rach 3rd as
a piece, and so if Argerich doesn't play it like ``the way Rachmaninov
is supposed to be'' then all the better.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel
* Institute For Nonlinear Science/University of California, San Diego
I would not, could not SAVE ON PHONE,
I would not, could not BUY YOUR LOAN,
I would not, could not MAKE MONEY FAST,
I would not, could not SEND NO CA$H,
I would not, could not SEE YOUR SITE,
I would not, could not EAT VEG-I-MITE,
I do *not* *like* GREEN CARDS AND SPAM! MAD-I-AM!
Nicolas Hodges
>--
>* Matthew B. Kennel
>* Institute For Nonlinear Science/University of California, San Diego
>
> I would not, could not SAVE ON PHONE,
> I would not, could not BUY YOUR LOAN,
> I would not, could not MAKE MONEY FAST,
> I would not, could not SEND NO CA$H,
> I would not, could not SEE YOUR SITE,
> I would not, could not EAT VEG-I-MITE,
> I do *not* *like* GREEN CARDS AND SPAM! MAD-I-AM!
You do like sigs which are over the recommended length though don't
you...
--
Nic
vladimir
Matt Kennel wrote in message ...
>:I'll agree on Gutierrez's performances. I've heard him do it live twice,
>:and both times it was edge of your seat, "wake up this pianist is really
>:something" performances.
>
>I also heard him on a live performance via an NPR station. Indeed it was
>as you described; it would be great to see him in person.
>
>Unfortunately I had the gall to put on the transcendent ultra-live
>Argerich recording immediately after, while the Gutierrez was still in
>my mind.
>
>By the way, I'm one of those people who rather loathed the Rach 3rd as
>a piece, and so if Argerich doesn't play it like ``the way Rachmaninov
>is supposed to be'' then all the better.
>
Rachmaninov's own recording of this piece is exceptional,
with a unique architectural sense to it a superb playing. However
he was one of the last people to sanction a "way that Rachmaninoff
is supposed to be", at one point claiming Gieseking was the best
interpreter of that concerto and at another "giving" the work to
Horowitz (after which, I believe, Rach himself stopped playing it.)
The three ways of playing it could scarcely be more different, and
all are worth repeated hearings.
- Phil Caron
Nicolas Hodges
a lot at present).
--
Nic
Scott K. Colebank
Gieseking MAY be worth hearing ONCE, but only for the way he bumbles and
stumbles through the cadenza (this statement applies to both
recordings). The recording with Mengelberg may hold additional interest
for tympani connoisseurs, since the conductor adds to that instrument's
role in the piece. Consider this fair warning.
Scott Colebank
Nicolas Hodges
>Gieseking MAY be worth hearing ONCE, but only for the way he bumbles and
>stumbles through the cadenza (this statement applies to both
>recordings). The recording with Mengelberg may hold additional interest
>for tympani connoisseurs, since the conductor adds to that instrument's
>role in the piece. Consider this fair warning.
I'm not sure that Gieseking is worth hearing in anything, let alone
Rachmaninov...
--
Nic
Dan Koren
Nicolas Hodges <n...@nicolashodges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm not sure that Gieseking is worth hearing in anything, let alone
>Rachmaninov...
>--
He is worth hearing in a few things, e.g. Mendelssohn Lieder ohne
Worte or Schumann Davidsbuendlertaenze. But there is no question
that he is/was very grossly overrated.
dk