BaL 4.02.12 - Rachmaninov's Symphony no. 2 in E minor

[Nick Armstrong]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...75/mffindcd-21

Bloody good value!

[Peter Katin]

I agree about not cutting the works . Did you ever record Rach 3 ? ....I grew up with your recordings of the 1st and 2nd concertos on Decca , I still love them.!

Well, I've played Rach 3 many times, but one performance was recorded, in 1970. I wouldn't be ashamed of it! But I have the only copy - it would go well with No.1 from 1958.

[visualnickmos]

Bloody good value!

....and even better b******Y value if you get it in its original incarnation as part of the complete symphonies set. Plus great "fillers" too, I might add!

[Sir Monty Golfear]

Well, I've played Rach 3 many times, but one performance was recorded, in 1970. I wouldn't be ashamed of it! But I have the only copy - it would go well with No.1 from 1958.

Shame it isn't available!?....dare I ask who you recorded it with?

[Thropplenoggin]

I don't own Rachmaninov's Second, having only begun getting to know the composer through the piano music.

I have now read through this read. Obviously, Previn was the BaL winner (I'm hoping to hear that BaL in a week or so), but Ashkenazy has much nicer sound, with the Concertgebouw brass really seem to rasp thrillingly in the crescendos.

I have two questions for MBers:

1) How important do you feel the first movement repeat it is? Wikipedia lists recordings as either complete or complete, first movement repeat.

2) This is a recent release and I wondered what MBers made of it:



Reviews seem to be mixed - the first movement clocks in at over 23 mins. The recording also seems quite compressed and distant for a modern recording.

[PJPJ]

.....
Reviews seem to be mixed - the first movement clocks in at over 23 mins. The recording also seems quite compressed and distant for a modern recording.

I find with many Liverpool recordings that they need to be played at quite high levels before they snap into focus. It's a fine performance, but Ashkenazy's excitement and the Concertgebouw's magnificent playing still never fails to impress.

[johnb]

I bought the Petrenko recording just before Christmas. Whenever I listen to it I am greatly put off by the coarse string sound, especially when they play loudly in the higher reaches where, on my system, they sound very coarse indeed and make unpleasant listening. It was so unpleasant that I wondered whether there was something badly wrong with my audio system, until I put on one of the BIS Sibelius/Vanska CDs!

It is probably due to my system as much as the recording's engineering - my PMC FB1+ speakers are probably quite revealing, which can be (and often is) a curse.

[Alison]

I found this cd something of a disappointment, somehow lacking in bloom and tension. I recognise the sound characteristics identified by John.

Not to be lightly dismissed, I look forward to another spin and the chance to reassess soon.

[Barbirollians]

Ashkenazy was my first recording of No 2 and I found it just a bit self-indulgent and slow . Previn on the other hand was superb from start to finish and I find no problem with the sound albeit I understand that the analogue ASD had more warmth and bloom.

Otherwise I am very fond of the Rozhdestvensky/LSO which was on Pickwick back in the day .

[cloughie]

I don't own Rachmaninov's Second, having only begun getting to know the composer through the piano music.

I have now read through this read. Obviously, Previn was the BaL winner (I'm hoping to hear that BaL in a week or so), but Ashkenazy has much nicer sound, with the Concertgebouw brass really seem to rasp thrillingly in the crescendos.

I have two questions for MBers:

1) How important do you feel the first movement repeat it is? Wikipedia lists recordings as either complete or complete, first movement repeat.

2) This is a recent release and I wondered what MBers made of it:



Reviews seem to be mixed - the first movement clocks in at over 23 mins. The recording also seems quite compressed and distant for a modern recording.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B000024JY9/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

65 minutes worth!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Ashkenazy was my first recording of No 2 and I found it just a bit self-indulgent and slow . Previn on the other hand was superb from start to finish and I find no problem with the sound albeit I understand that the analogue ASD had more warmth and bloom.

Otherwise I am very fond of the Rozhdestvensky/LSO which was on Pickwick back in the day .

My experience and opinion in every respect, Barbi

[Barbirollians]

Bargain !

Kletzki and Pappano also worthy of a mention . Previn still my favourite from Pappano , Kletzki and Rozh.

[Nick Armstrong]

Obviously, Previn was the BaL winner (I'm hoping to hear that BaL in a week or so)

Ashkenazy has much nicer sound, with the Concertgebouw brass really seem to rasp thrillingly in the crescendos.

I'm not sure the Ashkenazy has a "much nicer" sound. I've never had a problem with the Previn, though the Ashkenazy sounds great too.

I've had both for years, and the Ashkenazy's good for the sheer visceral excitement of the scherzo and some of the climaxes. But for me that's not what Rach 2's about. Previn gets closer to the warm, surging core of the piece, I think. It's one of those 'stand out' recordings of something which has an extra quality to it that's somehow beyond argument or definition. And the floating, caressing clarinet solo by Jack Brymer in the slow movement puts it out in front on that basis alone, for me.

You simply have to have it, Thropples Simple as that.

I've no strong feelings about the first movement repeat. And I don't know that Petrenko version.

[gurnemanz]

Ashkenazy was my first recording of No 2 and I found it just a bit self-indulgent and slow . Previn on the other hand was superb from start to finish and I find no problem with the sound albeit I understand that the analogue ASD had more warmth and bloom.

Otherwise I am very fond of the Rozhdestvensky/LSO which was on Pickwick back in the day .

I'm quite a recent convert to Rachmaninov. Previn was my only recording of No 2 until I acquired the good value Brilliant Classics box which contains the Rozhdestvensky/LSO. It is also on Regis

[Thropplenoggin]

I'm not sure the Ashkenazy has a "much nicer" sound. I've never had a problem with the Previn, though the Ashkenazy sounds great too.

Side by side, the sound sounds crisper, cleaner, more present. That's not to say that Previn's performance isn't more rewarding. I hardly know the work and so am unable to comment on this. I speak merely in terms of the sonic palette. But perhaps this is also in part due to the Concertgebouw's brass section?

Anyway, you make a compelling case for Previn and I will give it my undivided attention on Qobuz soon.

Given your avatar, you might be interested in these comments on a new(ish) recording of his string quartets.