Added: 3 years ago
From: alexkrantz23
Views: 8,659
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (17)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • For me there is definite, disturbing, rhythmic problems here that show up at different times when in his excitement to produce the ultimate in monolithic, staggering sound clusters he rushes certain patterns rather than remaining steady and solid. Certain chords that should be even are not. Also at times the supporting chords, acting as shadows under the top melodic chords, are too strong and compete too much with the principle melody. The piano itself however has a very Beautiful Full sound.

  • What do you think about Gavrilov version?

  • If you think Andsnes' performance is definitive then all that says to me is you have no understanding or appreciation of dynamics. Listen to Ashkenazy's ossia and if you can still say that you think the cacophony that Andsnes produces is mature or in any way considered then you need to sit in a darkened room and think about it for much longer. What works for Grieg won't work for Rachmaninov.

  • Comment removed

  • I listened to his Rach 3 in London with Papano conducting (which is available in CD by EMI)

    I was quite surprised by how he made the monster piece lyric and soft... some phrase sounded like murmuring, you know it's very difficult for this concerto.

    I have to say his piano sound was sometimes covered by orchestra from where I sat though. I am sure it would sound better in CD.

  • I'm just saying but, what you call fluidity sounds like rush to me. This pianist is very good, and he does an amazing job with this extremely difficult cadenza. Is very personal, very musical, the work of a really good pianist. I found a little bit unstructured and rushed his interpretation. He doesn't give you the time to savor the wonderful construction, the cords, the melodies, the power of this cadenza. That's why I still prefer Berman.

  • try these cadenza performed by rafael orosco.there you will find real fire. this one is wonderfull to but orosco for this specific cadenza is simply unbelievable. also ashkenazy with previn has reached a very intresting interpretation.

  • @chopinopus28 Orozco's is solid. My all-time favorite is probably Gavrilov, although I'm not sure when it was recorded. Cliburn's is nice, too.

    This guy (Andsnes) is an amazing technician. I liked how he wasn't afraid to go somewhat outside of the realm that the sheet music dictated, and I didn't hear a single false note.

  • @vladimirhorowitz gavrilon was recorded 1986. i have heard it to. it is very good, but there are many things missing for me, it has to be powrfull,stormy, almost insane in some parts and definetely maglioso in the finale. and without meaning gaps. good elements but not for the hole thing anout gavrilov. by the way, berman is a very good one. probably second ,for me, only to orozco's.

  • Wonderful but the ever is by Lazar Berman!

  • He should push it off the edge at 1:59 then at 2:14 - 2:21 there should be shots of the piano splintering against the sides of the cliffs as it hurtles downwards

  • his sound and interpretations are so genuine!!!!

  • Personally, and this is my own feeling, I prefer Kissin's performance of the ossia, which is so much structured, really thought as a musical material and idea, with a generous and colored sound of marble., completely mastered. under his fingers I love his range, dynamics, nuances...an interesting experience of listening...try it...

  • Listen to the Ashkenazy's one, and let me know what do you all think about. Andsnes plays it a bit faster than Ashkenazy, and yes it is also more musical, but only Vladimir in my opinion can give such a power off.

  • Andsnes is truly an artist. His wonderful execution on the cadenza is just a sample of his overall stunning performance on this piece. I heard his Rach 3 over ten years ago in Norway and was simply floored. I'm glad to hear he's still performing it.

  • The standard is each to their preference for me it is unquestionably Lazar Berman , Horozitz is neurotic.

  • I also adore Berman's work on this passage. The way he articulates and tempos the left hand, Berman elicits a deep, dark, (Lisztian-demonic) brooding as he builds up to the main theme. Once in the main theme, Berman's power and emotion are unmatched. Still, this passage can lend itself to a kind of choppy-ness as both hands pound heavy chords that rapidly alternate between the upper and lower registers. Andsnes somehow makes the alternating chords sound very fluid, melodious and unified.

  • @alexkrantz23

    Both Berman and this one (and some others) don't quite marc the climax entrance, in my opinion. I'm sure it was their intention, to just "flow" into it, but I prefer it more the way Volodos does it. Lang Lang goes a bit more in this direction, too.

    I dunno, I had thought of rearranging that part by adding lots of arpeggios and tremolos to produce a more orchestral sound... might take a while, though :D

  • My lord, this is beautiful. I saw him perform the Rach three at the Kennedy Center this past February and he remains the "standard" for me in terms of this piece.  I agree that's been used as a show piece to display how fast our loud one can play. However, Leif Ove adds such emotion and depth to this cadenza and concerto. He remains the "standard" for me. That isn't to say others are below, it's just a matter of preference!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more