Our Summer BAL 28 : Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No 3

[Barbirollians]

I have no recollection of this work being given a BAL - perhaps I missed a recent one ?

I must pledge my allegiance to the frequently abused Argerich/Chailly live version from 1982 - it has a glorious sweep and she really lets rip yet her slow movement is as fine as any.

Other favourites - the stupendous Horowitz/Barbirolli from 1941 sound is poor but a whirlwind and it is as if Toscanini free he has been let off the leash
Berman/Abbado - my first recording on an old now worn CBS tape I recall loving it - CD reissues nla even second hand -
Thibaudet/Ashkenazy - very different but let's you hear much that others miss even if the finale is a bit underpowered
Andsnes/Pappano - sleek , superbly played but just a bit too sleek ?
Lympany on an old olympia disc - great verve not so sure about the orchestra


What is your favourite ?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's not a work that gives me much pleasure - it goes on far too long, is incompetently structured, melodically poor (recycling those droopily "expressive" ideas that he'd already exhausted in the Second Concerto) indifferently orchestrated and gives far too much flannel to the soloist (who inevitably plays everything at the same - too loud - dynamic level). More padding and waffle than substance.

Except

... in the recording by the composer himself with the fabulous Philadelphians under Ormandy. Expertly paced (nobody dawdles: there is a real sense of forward momentume throughout), subtly supported, and whilst much of the Piano material contains more glitter than substance, Rachmaninoff shades the filigree ornamentation, bringing out a Fabergé-like variety of colourings. Lovely, warm Mono recorded sound, too: takes away the glare of other recordings.

[verismissimo]

It's not a work that gives me much pleasure...

Endlessly referred to in awe as "Rach 3" in the David Helfgott film, Shine. Awe-ful. And such a waste of the great Geoffrey Rush.

[Barbirollians]

Ouch - it may have been overhyped as a result of that film - which as I recall was well received at the time - but fhgl is far too harsh IMO .

I don't find any of the performances I have listed failing for those reasons .

Some others ... well yes you may have a point.

[VodkaDilc]

It's not a work that gives me much pleasure - it goes on far too long, is incompetently structured, melodically poor (recycling those droopily "expressive" ideas that he'd already exhausted in the Second Concerto) indifferently orchestrated and gives far too much flannel to the soloist (who inevitably plays everything at the same - too loud - dynamic level). More padding and waffle than substance.
.

Lugansky in the Prom last week would lead me to dispute ferneyhoughgeliebte's suggestions. Looking at my CD collection, so would Horowitz, Andsnes, Rachmaninov and Volodos. (There's also a version by Lang Lang on my shelf - I'm assuming it was given to me!)

[amateur51]

I've seen Argerich play this concerto 'live' at the Royal Festival Hall in London with Ozawa/Philharmonia and it was out of this world - tremendously exciting - so I'd vote for Argerich/Chailly.

Malcuzynski recorded an 'interesting version' many years back but my favourite is the mercurial Andrei Gavrilov's mid-70s version with Alexander Lazarev and USSR State Academic Orchestra (I don't know his later version with Muti in Philadelphia).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geH0SM0ukCg

[umslopogaas]

I have a CD of the composer playing it, originally recorded in 1939/40. I also have LP versions, including some by pianists you dont hear much about any more: Byron Janis, Leonard Pennario, Alicia de Larrocha, Vladimir Ashkenazy (two different versions), van Cliburn, Peter Donohoe, Moura Lympany. Alas, I dont have a version by Horowitz.

[Nick Armstrong]

It's not a work that gives me much pleasure - it goes on far too long, is incompetently structured, melodically poor (recycling those droopily "expressive" ideas that he'd already exhausted in the Second Concerto) indifferently orchestrated and gives far too much flannel to the soloist (who inevitably plays everything at the same - too loud - dynamic level). More padding and waffle than substance.

Except...

Mmmm... ferney... interesting. I'd have to disagree with most of that. I absolutely love this piece (I like No 2, I can't stand Nos 1 & 4). If it seems too long, melodically poor, droopily expressive, indifferently orchestrated and full of flannel, padding and waffle, then the performance in question must be seriously duff. I don't agree that it's only the composer who avoids those evils. I've heard some stinkers though, it's true. (I caught the end of the Proms one, didn't like the way Lugansky/Oundjian pulled a horrible rallentando near the end). The key, I think, it to keep a sense of the pulse of the piece and let the writing and dynamics do the work, not crass rubato. The start needs to be like the breathless start of a journey - if it already sounds heavy and exhausted, it's still-born.

That said, there's one structural oddity about this piece, for me. Often, concertos seem to be weighted towards the first movement: it often holds the ballast of the piece, the main 'argument' and centre of gravity... then the comparative relief of the slow movement... then the (sometimes) vaguely disappointing light hearted finale. Rach 3 seems to be to be unique in that the movements get better as one goes - the finale is where the real gold is, for me, melodically and emotionally, and that trumpet-crowned climax is one of my favourite moments in music (as long as the impetus is kept up, and it's not lingered over schmaltzily)

the recording by the composer himself with the fabulous Philadelphians under Ormandy. Expertly paced (nobody dawdles: there is a real sense of forward momentume throughout), subtly supported, and whilst much of the Piano material contains more glitter than substance, Rachmaninoff shades the filigree ornamentation, bringing out a Fabergé-like variety of colourings. Lovely, warm Mono recorded sound, too: takes away the glare of other recordings.

I agree - stunning performance.

But so are Argerich/Chailly as mentioned in #1; and Volodos/Levine; and Horowitz/Ormandy. I also have Douglas/Svetlanov (rather an extraordinary one); Vasary/Ahronovitch (great piano, let down by a wooden accompaniment and recording ); Glemser/Wit; Ashkenazy/Previn; Ashkenazy/Haitink; Rudy/Janssons; and the most recently acquired, Thibaudet - as Barbs says, it's odd, misses the point and I was going to take it back - but the clarity made me hang on to it.

Not sure which is top of all. The podium is Rachmaninov-Argerich-Volodos, for me.

(Looking up versions to recall which I have, I really want to hear Gavrilov/Muti which has passed me by. Anyone know it? EDIT: cross-posted with ya there, Ammy I take it I need to spend some hard-earned, then....? )

[amateur51]

EDIT: cross-posted with ya there, Ammy I take it I need to spend some hard-earned, then....?[/B] )

I've not heard the version with Muti, Caliban but if you can find the one with Lazarev at a sensible price, don't hold back, is my advice

[Barbirollians]

I have a CD of the composer playing it, originally recorded in 1939/40. I also have LP versions, including some by pianists you dont hear much about any more: Byron Janis, Leonard Pennario, Alicia de Larrocha, Vladimir Ashkenazy (two different versions), van Cliburn, Peter Donohoe, Moura Lympany. Alas, I dont have a version by Horowitz.

If you fancy one I do suggest the 1941 Horowitz/Barbirolli on APR I think - an absolutely stupendous account .

[BBMmk2]

I have Ashkenazy's first cycle, he did with the LSO/Previn. Absolute corker, imo but then I acquired Martha Argerich's with Chailly conducting RSO/Berlin.

[VodkaDilc]

If you fancy one I do suggest the 1941 Horowitz/Barbirolli on APR I think - an absolutely stupendous account .

.......including, on my CD (Appian), a wonderful account of Tchaikovsky 1.

[umslopogaas]

#1 Barbirollians, you mentioned Lympany playing this concerto on an old Olympia disc. I have an old Decca mono LP of Lympany playing it with the New Symphony Orchestra conducted by Anthony Collins. The number is LXT 2701. I think the "New Symphony Orchestra" was one of the big London orchestras moonlighting -does anyone know who they really were? And is this the recording referred to by Barbirollians? I must admit I have never come across Olympia, though Mercury produced an Olympian Series of discs, manufactured in the UK by EMI with the code AMS (equivalent to the American Mercury SR series).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

#1 Barbirollians, you mentioned Lympany playing this concerto on an old Olympia disc. I have an old Decca mono LP of Lympany playing it with the New Symphony Orchestra conducted by Anthony Collins. The number is LXT 2701. I think the "New Symphony Orchestra" was one of the big London orchestras moonlighting -does anyone know who they really were? And is this the recording referred to by Barbirollians? I must admit I have never come across Olympia

I think you're right about the "moonlighting": they recorded (as far as I can gather) only for DECCA in the 50s and 60s, so might be an orchestra contracted to another company, or an ad-hoc band gathered for the sessions.

Olympia was (it's now defunct) a CD label originating, I think, from the last days of the Soviet Union. Rhozdestvensky's superb Shostakovich cycle was one of their finest releases, and there were series dedicated to Mravinsky and Szymanowski - as well as the very first ever recording of Symphonies by the English composer John Marsh (1752-1828: I can't help thinking that there must have been a misunderstanding when someone described him as a "Georgian" Composer). And, yes, they did re-release the DECCA Lympany/NSO/Collins Rach #3. From the NAXOS biography on the pianist:

By the mid-1950s Decca had recordings of Lympany in concertos by Khachaturian, Rachmaninov and Saint-Saëns in their long-playing catalogue. The Piano Concerto No. 3 in D minor Op. 30 by Rachmaninov is particularly good for its clarity of both piano and orchestral playing, and it was reissued on compact disc by Olympia along with EMI concerto recordings from the mid-1950s of works by Rachmaninov (his Concertos Nos 1 and 2) and Prokofiev (Concertos Nos 1 and 3).

[Tony Halstead]

I have Ashkenazy's first cycle, he did with the LSO/Previn. Absolute corker, imo but then I acquired Martha Argerich's with Chailly conducting RSO/Berlin.

Ashkenazy's earlier Decca recording of #3 ( early- mid 1960s?) is with Fistoulari and the LSO. The horn playing in particular ( Barry Tuckwell?) is superior to that on the later Decca/ Previn ( early 1970s?) where the piano is out of tune much of the time and the orchestra is brash and 'in-yer-face'.