Rachmaninoff's Third: Another great recording?

02.25.2005

I'm a bit confused, this must be among the best rendentions of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto no. 3 in d-minor that I have ever heard. It also happens to be live. I'm shocked, to be frank, this recording is in par with all my favorites: Horowitz/Reiner '51, Argerich/Chailly '79, and Ashkenazy/Haitink '84. So again, I present to you, another piece of music worth your time:

Sergei Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto 3 in d-minor Opus. 30, Movement III

STEPHEN HOUGH piano, DALLAS SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA / ANDREW LITTON

--------->Listen in MP3

Nick Lewis's blog

Comments

Mon, 2006-09-04 14:03 — HandsomeWJ

What about 1940's recording by Horowitz?

I think the 1940's recoding by Horowitz is by far the best one if you can tollerate the cuts and sound quality. Almost always Horowitzs' early recordings are better than his later ones. In his early recordings you hear none of the awkwardness you sometimes find in his later ones. Just listen to his early recording of Liszt Sonata, absolutely miraculous! Argerichs' recordings are excellent too but her playing lacks the power of Horowitz, and there are some over pedalling which tends to blur thigs. For me Ashkenazy plays it too slow and gets rid of all the excitement. I like Rachmaninov's recording also, he makes the piece sound very easy, really no one played the piano more elegantly than great Sergei.

Wed, 2006-05-03 02:58 — a passing drifter (not verified)

The original and 1927

The original and 1927 versions of the 4th concerto make much more sense than the final "revision" that's recorded by so many pianists. Rachmaninov left the pieces, but took out the glue. While I love the final revision of the 4th (check out the definitive performance by Agustin Anievas), the original and 1927 versions are superior musically.

Tue, 2006-03-28 07:58 — a passing drifter (not verified)

Rachmaninoff concerto no.3

Well to be honest I enjoy the Horowitz recordings better than any other, which is quite bizarre seeing as I know Stephen Hough quite well, so you think that I would be biased! However, I feel that its Horowitz who really owns this concerto: you can hear it in his playing. No one else will ever own this piece as much as he did. I feel that in many of the other recordings, the soul or spirit of the person playing is often too weighed down by the immense diffulty of the technical requirements and strong emotions of the piece be clarified, or on the other hand in the worst recordings, the pianist does not bother at all with carrying out the subtlies of the piece. Overall, I believe that Horowitz plays this piece best, because he has a heart for the music and his 'musical spirit,' as you will, is big enough to match this monumental work, flying free above any emotional and technical baggage.

Wed, 2005-12-07 18:26 — Anonymous (not verified)

Rachmaninoff's Third:

I have heard many recordings od Rachmaninov No.3 Concerto. My favourites are Horowitz with Fritz Reiner and Ashkenazy with Fistoulary. They are both superb recordings with very different approaches by the two superb pianists. The refinement shown by Ashkenazy leading up to the cadenza. His touch and technique are quite superb. Horowitz also shows more restraint in this recording rather than the one he did with Barbarolli. Horowitz moves the piece on a bit quicker and puts a lot of extra life into it particularly further on. As I have said, both these recordings are absolutely superb!

Sun, 2005-12-04 18:33 — Anonymous (not verified)

Ashkensay is my favorite

I love the Ashkenazy recording but for one reason more than the others. I believe in all the recordings mentioned above each pianist has something to offer that is better than the other. But no orchestra makes the music come to life more than the Ashkenazy recording. THe horns in particular play with great control and balance. That's what I think is lacking in much of the other recordings and that is why I listen to the Ashkenazy

Wed, 2006-02-22 00:37 — R4CH 3

ASH screws it up i think, he

ASH screws it up i think, he screws up the quads (or whatever you call them. he makes an awkward pause) in the middle of the ossia cadenza. and at the very end of the cadenza, he blurs all the notes up while scaling down, it pisses me off everytime. better than i can do (for now) is all i can say. he just kinda let the peddle do the work. listen to rach play and you will see how be builds it up, and how those notes are crisp as can be.
ASH also plays it too slow and it ruins it. it kinda sounded like he was practicing or something. music can be slow but if its too slow, it can ruin it completly.

Tue, 2005-07-26 18:03 — Red Headed Stranger (not verified)

Hm, the Argerich just slays

Hm, the Argerich just slays the other ones you mentioned.

Tue, 2005-07-26 19:13 — Nick Lewis

I'm assuming by "slay", you

I'm assuming by "slay", you mean "does a bad job"? Or o you like that recording? I definately would say that it has its low points. For me, my biggest criticism is that the textures of the piece are muffled and blurred by her speed, heavy hands, and light touch. That seems to be my biggest complaint of her overall; her legato is almost too good to the point of muffling everything. Of course, not that I'm in a position to criticize her playing.

Tue, 2005-07-26 23:08 — Red Headed Stranger (not verified)

That's a strange assumption.

That's a strange assumption. It's transitive, you see. I find the muffling you mention to be much more a problem in the Horowitz, which obscured by his insistence on intruding into the piece. The Ashkenazy is sort of rote; he makes it into Academy Art. Argerich, recording quality aside, seems to nail that piece like she does little else, except perhaps selections from Danzas and Scarlatti.

Wed, 2005-07-27 04:22 — Nick Lewis

Hmmm, well I'm going to have

Hmmm, well I'm going to have to disagree on that point. Horowitz, by far is the most punchy and clear of them all... more so than Ashkenazy, and Argerich, Horowitz articulates the very fast repeated notes (especially in the third movement) much clearer than Argerich. This is not to say Horowitz was a better pianist (indeed, I'd argue that overall, Argerich has superior technique, and overall better interpretations of the composers at large). However, we must make sure we are talking about the same recording. Personally, if I were to take only two recordings of the 3rd to a desert island they would be Horowitz-Reiner 53' and Ashkenazy-Haitink 84'. I think its particularly important to specify those two recordings, as both Ashkenazy and Horowitz have released rather horrendous recordings (horowitz 78' live at carnegie in particular) If I could have one more, it would be Argerich 79'(?). Anyhow, I think that far from being academic, Ashkenazy's 84 recording is the most majestic of all the recordings currently for sale. There are also points of unbelievable virtusity that have no comparison (i.e. vivace in the third movement).

Mon, 2005-08-01 19:20 — Apikorus (not verified)

Concerto No. 3 for Piano AND ORCHESTRA

Too often the orchestral playing is overlooked in warhorse concertos like the Rachmaninoff Op. 30. I don't know how anyone can stand the harsh, sloppy playing of the Boston Symphony which ruins the marvelous performance by Byron Janis, for example. While Argerich's recording is remarkable, and while I can forgive (and even appreciate) some of her wildness, the orchestra has a hard time keeping up with her and the result is sometimes sloppy. This is one reason why I prefer the 1953 Horowitz recording with Reiner and the CSO. It isn't perfect but it is characteristically excellent -- Reiner was IMHO the greatest conductor of any American orchestra.

Mon, 2005-08-01 22:09 — Nick Lewis

I agree with you on Reiner.

I agree with you on Reiner. I'm very biased on the orchestra vs. the performer, as I am a pianist, and generally have never gotten into pure orchestral music. (that is something which I realize is quite indefensible). However, that is actually one of the things that attracts me so much to the Ashkenazy/Haitink recording of 1984. The combination of Ashkenazy's majestic, and powerful performance, Haitink and the Concertgebow's flawless synchronicity and tone, and the obvious advantage of digital recording make it my very favorite overall recording. Or actually screw it, Ashkenazy/Haitink is still second to Horowitz/Reiner 53' . Rachmaninoff freakin' gave the concerto to Horowitz after hearing him play it for crying out loud.

Wed, 2005-04-13 19:22 — Bern (not verified)

I have to agree

Hough's rendition of the 3rd is owed more credit, it's a pity he went for the "lesser" cadenza, I still bring out the Glemser, and Berezovsky (who was incredible when I saw him at theÂ Royal Festival Hall - also with Litten and the Dallas Symphony), however it's Hough's rendition of the all to often overlooked 4th that has inspired me most -Â strongly recommended.