i love him.. and love his music... but i dont know why... correct me if i'm wrong, i heard the octaves rhythms kinda weird, more like russian styled music. but anyway, i still likes his interpretation... nice
The very presence of favorable commentary on such members of the canaille as Lady Gaga on a post of Rachmaninoff's playing is not merely offensive, but an indication of the rabble's increasingly degraded sense of taste. It's not enough for them to go deaf blasting that bilge for all the world to listen to , they simply have to seek to elbow their way into the forums of those who love and value the works of the great composers. Must Rachmaninoff share the stage with queens and junkies?
@Noshirm you might want to be hesitant to call the majority of the world "rabble" or "canaille". Reactionary opinions have never stood the test of time.
I wouldn't ever play the octave passages like that, but Rachmaninoff somehow pulls it off really well. He's one of the few pianists who give you such complete and absolute satisfaction after listening to his recordings.
Horowitz's musical expression is the same and Rubinstein, these giants played till a very old age when their technique started declining. So what makes them so special? I find it's not the perfect notes or how well or fast they play, but how emotionally logical they are. Horowitz would hit a ton of wrong notes, Rubinstein did Grieg slower, but we all could feel the music.
Argerich has improved a lot, but she doesn't have the musical mind like Rachmaninoff - who was way too modest for his time. He would admire Godowsky and Hoffman in their technique and playing ability, but yet he was probably unaware of his own abilities, which to this day we can hear. His ability to convey the music across and express as if he was the composer. He swallowed most pieces whole in his imagination. When Hoffman's technique left him he was left with nothing.
@Stukov16 I've heard his compositions, but I don't necessarily agree with how he critiqued the Rachmaninoff Third Concerto and for that reason decided not to play it. Rachmaninoff and Horowitz had the greater mind for this reason. His abandonment towards music and alcoholism furthering his decline was rather a shame and shows not only a decline in technique, but also in the musicianship of his being. However, Hofmann of his prime was not only technically stunning but also very expressive.
@Stukov16 I enjoy the very old recordings before Hofmann's decline to alcoholism. Horowitz was also a victim to alcoholism like Hofmann, but recovered his mental well-being. Those two are often compared because of their similarity in technique and mindset, I believe Horowitz was the more humane.
@tchykovsky It was a decline, yes. The thing with Hofmann is that he had an amazing career until his 50s. He did unhumane tours, giving A LOT of concerts (just check any of his Russian tours), playing very hard things like Réminiscences de Don Juan (S. 418) by Liszt. He was also a kind of genius, in that he created a lot of inventions, including a new system for the hammering of the piano. Before he started drinking, he had divorced Marie Eustis, a girl he seemed to love more than he imagined.
Rachmaninoff and Argerich are both unique geniuses. I wouldn't want to miss either one.
What do people think of his rhythmic distortion of the main octave theme? I suppose it brings out (our, rather, adds) a truly scherzando character, but I have never heard a great pianist take that kind of liberty with Chopin before.
@OLarney87 I think it's the influence of jazz music. Rachmaninoff is said to have been very fond of jazz. I could be wrong, but listen to Rach's recording of Ballade No. 3. The jazz influence is unmistakable there.
Interesting comments about the historical and technological implications of this recording. The most remarkable thing of course, exemplified in the beauty and emotional range of this piece, is the eternal freshness of the original composition by the composer. Chopin is still the 'Heineken' of piano composers - he touches places others don't reach.
@truecrypt Dear friend, how can you come up with such an apt analogy about old recordings........that underneath the dirt and dust you see the brilliant colours and shadings............Rachmaninoff plays as a true composer/colorist..............not showing off how much technique but allowing his inner spirit to guide him through the music..........not always to everyone's liking......but ALWAYS with great majesty of conception.
It was exactly my point - claiming that Jimmy Hendrix (superb gitarist) would somehow "beat them all" is somewhat funny! There is no need to compare Hendrix with Rachmaninoff or Gaga with Callas.
To be completely honest - Hendrix was an extraordinary virtuoso and I can understand people who admire him. As for Lady Gaga singing... I leave the judgement to you...
Do the haters just not understand? This is Rachmaninoff, one of the best composers of all time we are listening too. This is just amazing, and we are lucky to be able to hear someone of that stature play this incredible piece.
@ultracoolhomies, we must be able to criticize even the "great" pianists and composers. If we do not, we cannot develop our intelligence and learn what makes people "great".
@ultracoolhomies, we must be able to criticize even the "great" pianists and composers. If we do not, we cannot develop our intelligence and learn what makes people "great". Defending the "greatness" of someone, like Beethoven or Mozart, by saying "they're great, and that's it" does not allow for the development of analytical intelligence, or even for clear-minded perception. This recording is fairly dull - despite that the great Rachmaninov made it.
I agree with you on many points but, by the same token, shouldn't you demonstrate your own "analytical intelligence" and prove the "dullness" of this interpretation?
Don't you think that criticism of *greats masters* should require higher "burden of proof" than simple (though not well substantiated) expression of admiration?
@truecrypt. very well. I will tell you why this recording is dull. Firstly, Rachmaninov doesn't keep the tempo flowing and moving, and as a result, the piece sounds perfunctory. Also, it may just be the terrible recording equipment available back in his days, but I hear barely any dynamic variation. But the real problem is that Rachmaninov isn't expressing much of anything here, except during the sparkly parts...and even there, his playing stagnates and is overly methodical and careful.
Acoustic quality of this recording is dismal. You are correct - sounds mechanical, almost as a piano roll... For a while I thought it was mechanical recording!
Try to turn on internal "amplifier/filter" to recreate actual picture...
There are many great qualities in this playing: well shaped form, clear lines, orchestral power - it's all just under the veil of poor recording technology... like a great old painting under thick layer of dust and dirt. But beauty is still there!
@truecrypt, nevertheless, regardless of whether I like how Rachmaninov plays the piano, I still love his music, and regard him as a composer far superior to Beethoven and Mozart, and equal to Chopin. (That's right, I have come to the conclusion that he is better than Beethoven and Mozart!). Rachmaninov's music is much more expressive and rich than Beethoven, and only the pro-German bias of current conservatories prevents us from grasping this truth.
@oknarbtal, Try thinking for yourself for a change instead of mindleswsly parroting the conclusions of the academics and musicologists. Mindlessly parroting anything doesn't make you sophisticated; it just shows that you either lack the capacity for independent thought, or else that you are too afraid to think for yourself.
I really don't like the performance and find Pogorelich's performance to be more romantic and better played while he brings it to higher level of perfection...
@tedly10027 Don't you find it is absolutely pointless to sit at your computer looking up recordings to compare great pianists in an attempt to make one look better then the other? I love Martha Argerich, she is my idol. I'm not saying she's better then anyone, I'm only saying I like her. Simple as that. I also love Richter and Horowitz. If you had said something along those lines I wouldn't have been as angered by your previous comments. Good day sir.
I think this is officially my favorite youtube video even though it's just a picture of chopin. I wish I had a time machine so my ears could hear Rachmaninoff play the piano.
He was a great musician not just a great pianist!, he performs as a gifted and inspired composer and I think is an unfair matching (Rach and Martha} she´s perhaps the greatest pianist of the 21th century (or one of the top 5) her musical facility is outstanding, but Rachmaninoff was a lot more, ( musically speaking), I cant imagine his inner ear, full of fantastic ideas and the world inside him, when you talk about a great composer you are talking about pure genius! (sorry for my english
I'm just an intermediate pianist, so I would NEVER attempt to even try this piece, but I have never heard it played quite like this. I don't like the little hesitations and stops in the double octaves. Why was he doing that? Is that the way Chopin actually wrote it? I looked in the sheet music and it doesn't look like I'm hearing it here.
3:20 Rachmaninoff is good at double stops, violinists could learn from him. 5:00 I love how he plays these repeated notes with a slight crescendo. Technically impervious and original with a great rhythmic sense and phrasing. Hes just a good ole boy ill tell ya that.
This is one of the best recordings of this piece I've ever heard. I think it might have been the use of rubato that made it stand out (or maybe just the fact that it's played by Rachmaninov).
Check out pogorelich either in the 1980 chopin comp or his later ones. My ear likes his a lot. The 1980 one is a good show of technical skill. I also like Rachmaninov, Idil Beret, and Argerich.
The elegance and the clarity in his playing is nothing short of a miracle, it is unattainable. I am beginning to believe he had the best technique of them all, and how fitting it is that someone with such a technique would practice pieces extremely slowly.
This was the first recording I heard of this piece, and I've been looking for a modern recording since then, and there are good ones out there, but no one plays it like Sergei :)
Best version of this I've ever heard. Argerich is impressively fast but doesn't have nearly as much emotional impact as Rachmaninoff's interpretation...
I usually don't remove comments unless they are clearly hateful or provocative. I'm sure I didn't delete your comment... may be you posted it in another place? By all means - you are more than welcome to re-post it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
on what basis are you making that statement? It is pretty well known that Argerich can play things faster and with much more facility than any other pianist, dead or alive. Listen to any of the octaves passages or scale work in tchaikovsky concerto, her chopin op 10 no 1, her scarlatti sonata on youtube, the list goes on. Rachmaninoff does not have her level of dexterity.
My statement made on the basis of first hand knowledge of the subject. Argerich is an outstanding pianist but Rachmaninoff is much more than simply pianist-virtuoso. BTW there are many pianist who can play as fast as Argerich (seems like you're obsessed with this topic). Rachmaninoff could do everything Argerich does and many times over... Argerich (with all respect) doesn't play on Rachmaninoff's level.
@truecrypt i stumbled on yet another wonderfully individualistic performance of this work. wow! my personal view on argerich: I think it's untrue that she "outspeed" other pianists "dead or alive". that's just a result of HER fame based on her particular characteristic of playing very fast generally . but it does NOT mean she "out techniques" others. rubinstein's VERY EARLY recording is far CLEANER, more powerfully robust and lyrical but also at least as fast. as are many other past pianists'.
Understand your point of view, but Argerich is not only having an incredible technique (fair enough), but, in my opinion, she is reinventing each piece she is playing, which is not always the case of other pianists, being Rachmaninoff, Richter, etc. Lucky we are of having so many great pianists to comment on ! ;-)
Argerich is superb and amazing pianist! I would disagree about her "reinventing each piece". IMO she is firmly staying within commonly accepted performing traditions... and I say it in a positive sense! Rachmaninoff and Richter represent different approaches - "individualistic" and "objective". In many ways Argerich's style is closer to Richter's *recreating* than Rachmaninoff's *reinventing*. Of course, there is no clear line between those approaches.... rather our perceptions.
@truecrypt "Rachmaninoff could do everything Argerich does and many times over" How would one even measure that? Are there things that Argerich has FAILED to do on a piano that Rach can do? If anything, Argerich's repertoire would suggest that she's more of a virtuoso than Rach was.
Rach is an exceptional composer, no one can deny that. But pianistically (in terms of technique), they're pretty much on par. Your preference of one's playing over the other is irrelevant in such a comparison.
Argerich didn't fail, but IMO she didn't reach Rachmaninoff's level of artistic impact either. If her playing impresses you more - so be it... but even from the strictly technical point of view - Rachmaninoff is still unmatched. Argerich is superb pianist, but Rachmaninoff is *much more* and it shows in his playing.
BTW I'm not the one who started this futile dispute, but since Argerich's fans became too aggressive I thought taking a cold shower would be good for some of them! :)
@truecrypt "If her playing impresses you more - so be it" Her playing does impress me. So does Rachmaninoff's. I admire how differently they choose to interpret pieces. Argerich - to me- sounds more fiery. Rach is elegant in everything he plays.
"Argerich is superb pianist..Rachmaninoff is *much more*" You've almost repeated the exact same statement again without explaining how you've come to that conclusion.
@truecrypt "I've come to my conclusions through the listening, playing and thinking" So it's basically your opinion of the matter rather than an actual fact?
Again, just to be clear, I am in no way downplaying Rach's technical abilities or lyricism etc. I'm just interested in knowing what you think Argerich is lacking in the technical field, since a lot of ppl consider to be a very gifted technician (amongst other things). Your opinion of her musicality isn't my concern. It's your own opinion
Argerich doesn't lack much in technical field. It's just that her technical abilities are outstanding but not "unbeatable". All big virtuosi have their strong and "normal" sides. For example Grigory Ginzburg would probably exceed Argerich in all areas of piano technique, so what? He is barely known... So, her technique is great but not exceptional in comparison to Giants like Rachmaninoff, Hofmann or Richter.
@EmmJupiter wow these piano intellectuals! I suggest you lie down on the railway track and let the music roll over you. And then you stand up and try to figure out what happened to you. Why don't you upload your work and we can see or hear the difference
@truecrypt "she didn't reach Rachmaninoff's level of artistic impact" That's because Rach was a composer and Argerich isn't. He's definitely more capable of impacting music than a pianist is. I wouldn't say that that's grounds to determine that he's a superior technician though.
Thank you for the explanation... I've already known it... ;)
I think you're trying to persuade me (and others) that Argerich is equal to Rachmaninoff in purely technical aspect... Yes, they both are great "speedsters", but Rachmaninoff could easily do everything Argerich does (technically). BTW in terms of "speed" many pianists could be in Argerich's company - Friedman, Hofmann, Busoni, Richter, Cziffra.. should we continue? Artistic qualities put Rachmaninoff above others.
@truecrypt I wouldn't call Rachmaninoff a speedster at all. And Argerich has a problem with speed. Some might consider it to be a positive aspect. I wouldn't necessarily say it is.
"many pianists could be in Argerich's company..should we continue?" I don't think we should. All of this is completely irrelevant. Hundreds of pianists can go as fast as Argerich, so what?
Virtuosity isn't only about speed, you know?
"you're trying to persuade me...Argerich is equal" why would i want to?
Yes, I know couple things about virtuosity... Seems to me like your initial comment challenged my view that "Rachmaninoff could do everything Argerich does and many times over". I do stay by my word and still believe it is true. I didn't want to demean Argerich in any way, but my goal was to cool down some hot-tempered Argerich's fans.
P.S. by "speedster" I mean an ability to play extremely fast, - don't confuse with "speeder" - the one who speeds up uncontrollably...
@truecrypt "Seems to me like your initial comment challenged my view that "Rachmaninoff could do everything Argerich does and many times over""
I wouldn't say "challenged". Simply questioned. For one to say that person A can do everything that B does "and many times over". It would logically suggest that person B is lacking A LOT. I wanted to know what you thought that was. And, apparently, it has something to do with speed and clarity. Unexpected. Possible. Improbably imo :)
@truecrypt "Not at all! "B" can be a sup..." I understand that you're not saying that Arg is technically weak. What i think you're saying is that if Rach/hoffman were (on a scale of 1 to 10) a 10 or even 11, then Argerich might be an 8. Meaning tht she's VERY GOOD, but not GREAT. Which also means that she can't do what a "10" can do on the piano. (i.e. She's failed in doing so). (continued)...
@truecrypt "It's just that Rachmaninoff is above this scale"
That's why i said "or even 11 [out of 10]" which would mean that he is above that scale. Even though Rach, Horowitz and all the other pianists you mentioned came way before Argerich, and one might consider that they'd raised the bar for what being a great (or genius as you say) pianist is.
@truecrypt & according to you also, Rach/others surpass her in technique (which you defined earlier as the ability to play fast and clear). Ergo, Argerich is unable to play as fast or as clear as the afore mentioned artists. Am i getting this wrong again?
As for the Thalberg/Liszt comparison. I've never heard either play. I don't believe in making my mind up based on other peoples' opinions. Relying on others, might have ended us up hating works like "the rite of spring" and a lot of Prokofiev.
I was talking about "fast and clear" as only PART of what we (pianists) call technique. This is *limited* but commonly accepted definition among piano students and even professionals.
You don't have to rely on other people saying... Pick up Thalberg and Liszt scores and play through them... slowly... You'll be able to form a very clear picture who was a great talent and who was a pianistic genius. We didn't hear Chopin either, but would you doubt his pianistic abilities?
@truecrypt "Pick up Thalberg and Liszt scores and play through them..." I'd then be comparing their skills in composition.
"We didn't hear Chopin either, but would you doubt his pianistic abilities" I wouldn't like to. It's just that we keep reading (of those days) that very few pianists could master works that are now played almost regularly. I think i'd read that of Schumann's fantasie. So one MIGHT assume...
@truecrypt Furthermore, although it's difficult to doubt chopin/liszt's virtuosity, you'll never know whether YOU would have enjoyed their playing or not. Many pianists today are spoken very highly of who i find rather bland. If we hadn't had the means to record them today, they might have all become legends in the future (i'm pretty sure there's something wrong with the structure of that sentence :D)
I'm very much in agreement with you here! Yet, my teacher used to say that despite of constantly improving technical level ("mechanical abilities") of the majority of students and pianists, the quantity of truly *great masters* doesn't increase dramatically. Time will decide who will join the company of Immortals.
@truecrypt I agree with your teacher. I find it very difficult to listen to many contemporary pianists. I had attributed this to the fact that i was accustomed to listening to a specific pianists and was not used to the newer ones. I'm not sure it's the case though.
Yet, another reason i think they won't join the "immortals" is that the majority of the society (at least the one i've encountered) are not interested in this genre. Concert pianists will never be revered as they once were.
@truecrypt "Artistic qualities put Rachmaninoff above others" If by artistic qualities you mean his ability to compose music, then i agree completely. But that's not what this discussion is about.
"Rachmaninoff could easily do everything Argerich does" I never said he couldn't :D I simply pointed out that Argerich has pulled off works that are -according to her and others- more challenging than Rach's compositions. So i was wondering why you stated the opposite (in sort of a factual manner).
These are your words: "If anything, Argerich's repertoire would suggest that she's more of a virtuoso than Rach was." I understood you said that Argerich is "more virtuoso" (whatever meaning you put in these words) than Rachmaninoff. My opinion is that she is not! Neither technically (an ability to play fast and clear), nor artistically. She is wonderful pianist, but I don't hear anything in her playing Rachmaninoff would miss in his own... regardless of what she pulled off...
@truecrypt "she is not! Neither technically (an ability to play fast and clear)"
Finally! :D i think i got the answer i wanted.
So, you're basically saying that Argerich is lacking the ability to play as fast as others, & clarity that other pianists possess.
my next question should be quite obvious. What is your supposed knowledge of Argerich's ability to play fast based on? e.g. She struggles while playing X while Y plays it easily / She doesn't play....fast enough...
No, you're trying to "bend" what I said and argue with your own interpretation of what I said... :)
Argerich doesn't lack technical skills, but her exceptional technique IS NOT superior to techniques of THE GREATS, i.e. Rachmaninoff, Hofmann, Busoni, Richter, Gould, Horowitz, Cziffra, etc. Your initial statement was that she is "more virtuoso" than Rachmaninoff. It's not correct even if we discuss only technical/mechanical sides of piano playing.
@truecrypt "Your initial statement was that she is "more virtuoso" than Rachmaninoff" No it wasn't. I was pointing out that if a comparison were reasonable (e.g. if we compared on the basis of the technical difficulty of repertoire), then Argerich would surpass since she's not only played Rach's works, but others as well.
That is until i found out your basis of comparison.
"her exceptional technique IS NOT superior to...THE GREATS" I never claimed so. I wouldn't compare them at all.
Trying to decide who is "more virtuoso" on the basis of the technical difficulty of repertoire is ridiculous... Do you really think Rachmaninoff wouldn't be able to play anything Argerich's ever played? ;)
So, if one accepts Rachmaninoff's technical ability to play Argerich's repertoire (and I don't see the reason why he couldn't) we have no basis to continue this discussion, i.e. "who is more virtuoso"...
@truecrypt "Do you really think Rachmaninoff wouldn't be able to play anything Argerich's ever played?" I'm pretty sure he CAN do it. I'm just not sure i'd necessarily like it. I thought i'd love hearing Horowitz play Prokofiev, and although many do, I find his Prokofiev to be too messy for my taste. LangLang CAN play everything Argerich/Rach play, but...
But i'm also of the opinion that Argerich CAN play everything Rach plays. I've heard no reason to doubt it so far. Your preference of other..
@EmmJupiter versions of any piece is not proof that Argerich is any lesser a virtuoso than any of the pianists mentioned. At least that's the way i see it.
Hamelin - to me- sounds very uninteresting at times, but i wouldn't say that he's any lesser of a virtuoso then X, Y, Z...
Feel free not to reply to this if you don't want to. It's just an afterthought :)
I think, that speed often is like a bane, not a boon,at least for an "amateur listener" like me. I really love it, when I'm allowed to listen to any pianist, who is working out any oevre. The slower tempo gives me the chance to discover (by means of my ears not my eyes) all these wonderful details and correlations, the composer had written in his score...Speed is doubtlessly fascinating, but music is more than acrobatics-whereas acrobatics may become art too,especially at Cirque du Soleil !
Btw I love Argerich AND Rachmaninov and so many others too, but I hate "ranking" !!!
Let's enjoy the distinctive uniqueness of any great pianist and the different aspects, they show us within the same score - live and being alive is difference !!!
@Liebromeistal I'm sorry but you have no clue... Argerich is an extremely talented pianist, but there are many who can match her speed. Rachmaninoff is in another leauge, even Argerich would agree with that. He was one of the best pianists of all time, one of the best composers of all time, and a renaissance man. Horowitz or sergio tiempo was the fastest playing Tchaikovsky octaves. Michelangeli playing Scarlatti, flawless. Pogorelich's ocataves in scherzo 3. This performance is incredible.
@r4a2m0o I thnk that While Argerich is rightly known in recent decades as one of the very best - alive - it is a stretch to consider her, on a general basis, as on a par with the likes of Rubinstein, Horowitz, Richter, Rachaminoff. Argerich plays CERTAIN selections extremely well (her Ravel Gaspard de la Nuit, her Liszt concertoin Eflat, her reputation as "faster and louder than anyone" is really because of her style of playing fast/loud from SECTION 2 SECTION in fast parts without "breathing".
@tedly10027 but in terms of actual "finger" speed within fast passages - she is not that much faster than others. compare RUBINSTEIN's very old recording: Chopin Prelude Bflat minor. with martha's, Rubinstein's is actually like lightning and extremely smooth and CLEAN compared to martha's. and BIGGER sounding. compare martha's to Richter's of this piece. you'll all be surprised at how richter leaves marth in the dust, musically and technically. she is VERY good but NOT as great as many others.
Truecrypt definitely right about this one. No doubt that Argerich as an amazing pianist - but Rachmaninoff is a phenomenal musican and pianist. His ability to give life to melodic lines no matter how dense or polyphonic the texture is unreal. His tone, understanding of form and structure and color, and most importantly his rhythm are unparalleled and unique. Not to mention his ridiculous technique. Sometimes I doubt he was even human. On top of this he was a first rate composer.
I love the way Rachmaninoff SETTLES on the ending notes of the lyrical phrases...it's a kind of "singing" to the "very last breath" that seems to be absent in so many modern performances...and the way he and other "ancient" pianists carry the main melodies in chords are so special.
Thank you for such kind words of praise and expression of musical understanding.
I'm getting along in years, so I am rooted in a culture that no longer exists, except in the pages of old books and fading memories. Perhaps that's why I identify so closely with these recordings of legendary pianists, instrumentalists and singers?
I grew up in New York, and was treated to the best of everything -- a great privilege I'll continue to enjoy to my dying day.
PART SEVEN: I wish Rachmaninoff had recorded more and under more favorable circumstances. I have known people who heard him live many times, and wish I could have been one of them from what they've said.
PART SIX: I love and deeply respect Rachmaninoff, but almost always find his recordings of Chopin and Schumann generally disappointing. Sometimes, it all sounds just a little too fast --- almost perfunctory --- as though he couldn't wait to get it over with and move on to something more important. I get that feeling a lot with Pollini too -- as though it were all just too easy to interest him very much any longer.
We should listen to Rachmaninov as author rather than interpreter. His interpretation can not escape from its artistic and compositional sense and I believe that this is a good thing. I imagine that Chopin would have interpreted the music of Rachmaninov with its own style.
I replied to you at the site of this recording. You'll see it posted above. Apparently, you can't answer posters directly, except here?
Anyway, Pischna has saved many a set of overly ambitious fingers from early decline and atrophy. As the French would say, "On peut souffrir pour etre belle."
PART FIVE: There are many recordings of this formidable work that are better. Truecrypt, himself, has given us one of the best recorded-live performances I've ever heard.
How I wish someone would post Guiomar Novaes' lyric, elegant, totally satisfying rendition here. It is less aggressive and animalistic than some of the more popular versions, but lacks nothing in virtuosity.
I second that, Pischnaholic! Novaes' version of the third Scherzo is beautiful, refined, with gorgeous tone and plenty of brilliance. Would love to find it here on YT...along with the rest of her discography (ever hear her Mazurkas--especially her "Emile Gaillard"?--such elegance and velvet sound, achieved with such effortlessness...the final trill is delicious!) I think you're right about Rachmaninov's performance here.
PART FOUR: The great Annie Fischer almost spoiled her otherwise brilliant, sensitive and powerful recording of this work by rushing through this last set of octaves like an express train passing through a local subway stop. Even so, Fischer's performance is generally more satisfying than this one.
PART THREE: A ritardando in the final octave passage is surely implied in this music, because It adds greatly to the drama by bringing a sense of portent that adds even more power and energy to the coda when it is finally unleashed.
PART TWO: His treatment of the chorale is broad and noble, but so broad that in places it threatens to break the tension and thwart the momentum of the whole.
The coda is absolutely brilliant. I particularly like the way he retards the grand octave passage that immediately precedes this electrifying "cross country gallop at breakneck speed."
PART ONE The opening octave passage here sounds quirky in the extreme. I don't understand why Rachmaninoff chose to distort the rhythm as he did. It is certainly not what we would normally expect to hear, which may be insightful and refreshing at times, but it is troubling in this performance.
Rachmaninoff was, of course, a consummate virtuoso, and could do anything he wanted to do. Why he chose to state the octave theme this way is anybody's guess. Frankly, it borders on the grotesque.
Dear Pischnaholic. Frankly, I don't know who you are! But I LOVE the you critique!
You are obviously someone whom is able to discern excellence in a pianist.~ But I must say that your" Way of putting it.".. is a that of a consummate word virtouso.
Hopefully you don't mind my appreciating your ability to discect with such precision and yet I still giggle at some of your expressions! I truly enjoy your comments..UH...I am ~ Quirky in the extreme!! ( not a stalker..lol)
The notes in bars 26 to 39 can be seen as one unit, just like those in 40 to 55, thus making both the bars from 26 to 39 a phrase, and the bars from 40 to 55 too. To make this phrasing clear, you should syncopate between bar 39 and 40. A short pause actually makes it two units.
In contrary, you can say bars 26 to 55 form one unit, which is a reason not to syncopate.
I want to add 6:09 to the changes Rachmaninoff made to the original text: the octave cascade started an octave higher than written. Busoni did a similar thing at the end of the black key etude recording. Perhaps it was fashionable in those days to lengthen hard octave passages and show octave playing skills.
i love him.. and love his music... but i dont know why... correct me if i'm wrong, i heard the octaves rhythms kinda weird, more like russian styled music. but anyway, i still likes his interpretation... nice
PIAN0life 1 month ago
Rach plays extremely well!
But why is there some places saying he was not a good player and went to composin
Tiszt 2 months ago
the best part is from 5:56 to the end :)
gogoshvili94 3 months ago
Perfect! Magical! Thank you.
truman1942 4 months ago
yep, this IS Rachmaninoff, I recognize the rhythmic 'snap' in the octave section.
marcohorowitz8 4 months ago
The very presence of favorable commentary on such members of the canaille as Lady Gaga on a post of Rachmaninoff's playing is not merely offensive, but an indication of the rabble's increasingly degraded sense of taste. It's not enough for them to go deaf blasting that bilge for all the world to listen to , they simply have to seek to elbow their way into the forums of those who love and value the works of the great composers. Must Rachmaninoff share the stage with queens and junkies?
Noshirm 4 months ago 8
@Noshirm you might want to be hesitant to call the majority of the world "rabble" or "canaille". Reactionary opinions have never stood the test of time.
HTMHicks 3 months ago
@HTMHicks Scram, you troll.
Noshirm 3 months ago
@Noshirm cutting rebuttal
HTMHicks 3 months ago
I wouldn't ever play the octave passages like that, but Rachmaninoff somehow pulls it off really well. He's one of the few pianists who give you such complete and absolute satisfaction after listening to his recordings.
forgottenbooks 5 months ago
this makes me want to give up piano. i can't do this kind of justice to an instrument.
andrewrherbert 5 months ago
how the hell does he play the dotted quarter notes in octaves??
newFranzFerencLiszt 6 months ago
@newFranzFerencLiszt He had huge hands.
LanzaLover2 4 months ago in playlist Historical Piano Performers
migliore di quella di rubinstein!!!!
TheSupermaurizio 8 months ago
@TheSupermaurizio Si, d'accordo ! veramente e naturalmente.
Sempre Rachmaninoff :-))
Bret6464 8 months ago
Sounds like Rachmaninoff was really enjoying playing this.
I sure enjoy listening to it.
inazuma3gou 9 months ago
Back then, it had only been 80-something years since Chopin wrote the piece.
forgottenbooks 1 year ago
Horowitz's musical expression is the same and Rubinstein, these giants played till a very old age when their technique started declining. So what makes them so special? I find it's not the perfect notes or how well or fast they play, but how emotionally logical they are. Horowitz would hit a ton of wrong notes, Rubinstein did Grieg slower, but we all could feel the music.
tchykovsky 1 year ago
Argerich has improved a lot, but she doesn't have the musical mind like Rachmaninoff - who was way too modest for his time. He would admire Godowsky and Hoffman in their technique and playing ability, but yet he was probably unaware of his own abilities, which to this day we can hear. His ability to convey the music across and express as if he was the composer. He swallowed most pieces whole in his imagination. When Hoffman's technique left him he was left with nothing.
tchykovsky 1 year ago
@tchykovsky There's a lot to be rediscovered by Hofmann. Not many know this, but he was an excellent composer.
Stukov16 9 months ago
@Stukov16 I've heard his compositions, but I don't necessarily agree with how he critiqued the Rachmaninoff Third Concerto and for that reason decided not to play it. Rachmaninoff and Horowitz had the greater mind for this reason. His abandonment towards music and alcoholism furthering his decline was rather a shame and shows not only a decline in technique, but also in the musicianship of his being. However, Hofmann of his prime was not only technically stunning but also very expressive.
tchykovsky 9 months ago
@Stukov16 I enjoy the very old recordings before Hofmann's decline to alcoholism. Horowitz was also a victim to alcoholism like Hofmann, but recovered his mental well-being. Those two are often compared because of their similarity in technique and mindset, I believe Horowitz was the more humane.
tchykovsky 9 months ago
@tchykovsky It was a decline, yes. The thing with Hofmann is that he had an amazing career until his 50s. He did unhumane tours, giving A LOT of concerts (just check any of his Russian tours), playing very hard things like Réminiscences de Don Juan (S. 418) by Liszt. He was also a kind of genius, in that he created a lot of inventions, including a new system for the hammering of the piano. Before he started drinking, he had divorced Marie Eustis, a girl he seemed to love more than he imagined.
Stukov16 9 months ago
He was a fabulous pianist but I have never warmed to his playing in general.
aardvaark069 1 year ago
Rachmaninoff and Argerich are both unique geniuses. I wouldn't want to miss either one.
What do people think of his rhythmic distortion of the main octave theme? I suppose it brings out (our, rather, adds) a truly scherzando character, but I have never heard a great pianist take that kind of liberty with Chopin before.
OLarney87 1 year ago
@OLarney87 I think it's the influence of jazz music. Rachmaninoff is said to have been very fond of jazz. I could be wrong, but listen to Rach's recording of Ballade No. 3. The jazz influence is unmistakable there.
Tesla713 1 year ago
@Tesla713, Thanks! That's very interesting.
OLarney87 1 year ago
Interesting comments about the historical and technological implications of this recording. The most remarkable thing of course, exemplified in the beauty and emotional range of this piece, is the eternal freshness of the original composition by the composer. Chopin is still the 'Heineken' of piano composers - he touches places others don't reach.
iansdigby 1 year ago
How can you dislike this??
LordCalvinHastings 1 year ago
@truecrypt Dear friend, how can you come up with such an apt analogy about old recordings........that underneath the dirt and dust you see the brilliant colours and shadings............Rachmaninoff plays as a true composer/colorist..............not showing off how much technique but allowing his inner spirit to guide him through the music..........not always to everyone's liking......but ALWAYS with great majesty of conception.
etap1 1 year ago
A God of music playing another God of music!
miliona1re 1 year ago
Favourite rendition of this piece.
ProkofievRules 1 year ago
Yeah, well if Jimmy Hendrix played piano he could beat them all...
jk
kenouman 1 year ago
@kenouman
You forgot to add that if Lady Gaga could sing she'd beat Maria Callas... ;)
truecrypt 1 year ago 18
@truecrypt Lady Gaga sings very well. I don't think there's competition across arts. Maria Callas sings opera; Lady Gaga sings pop.
VyvienneEaux 4 months ago
@VyvienneEaux
It was exactly my point - claiming that Jimmy Hendrix (superb gitarist) would somehow "beat them all" is somewhat funny! There is no need to compare Hendrix with Rachmaninoff or Gaga with Callas.
To be completely honest - Hendrix was an extraordinary virtuoso and I can understand people who admire him. As for Lady Gaga singing... I leave the judgement to you...
truecrypt 4 months ago 2
@truecrypt Brilliant! (;-D)
Noshirm 4 months ago
@kenouman and if my dad had 3 pairs of tits he'd be a pig.
pitanguirj 1 year ago
for those who don't know, jk means just kidding...
kenouman 1 year ago
this is badass
Therachh3 1 year ago
Do the haters just not understand? This is Rachmaninoff, one of the best composers of all time we are listening too. This is just amazing, and we are lucky to be able to hear someone of that stature play this incredible piece.
ultracoolhomies 1 year ago
@ultracoolhomies, we must be able to criticize even the "great" pianists and composers. If we do not, we cannot develop our intelligence and learn what makes people "great".
KhagarBalugrak 1 year ago
@ultracoolhomies, we must be able to criticize even the "great" pianists and composers. If we do not, we cannot develop our intelligence and learn what makes people "great". Defending the "greatness" of someone, like Beethoven or Mozart, by saying "they're great, and that's it" does not allow for the development of analytical intelligence, or even for clear-minded perception. This recording is fairly dull - despite that the great Rachmaninov made it.
KhagarBalugrak 1 year ago
@KhagarBalugrak
I agree with you on many points but, by the same token, shouldn't you demonstrate your own "analytical intelligence" and prove the "dullness" of this interpretation?
Don't you think that criticism of *greats masters* should require higher "burden of proof" than simple (though not well substantiated) expression of admiration?
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt. very well. I will tell you why this recording is dull. Firstly, Rachmaninov doesn't keep the tempo flowing and moving, and as a result, the piece sounds perfunctory. Also, it may just be the terrible recording equipment available back in his days, but I hear barely any dynamic variation. But the real problem is that Rachmaninov isn't expressing much of anything here, except during the sparkly parts...and even there, his playing stagnates and is overly methodical and careful.
KhagarBalugrak 1 year ago
@KhagarBalugrak
Acoustic quality of this recording is dismal. You are correct - sounds mechanical, almost as a piano roll... For a while I thought it was mechanical recording!
Try to turn on internal "amplifier/filter" to recreate actual picture...
There are many great qualities in this playing: well shaped form, clear lines, orchestral power - it's all just under the veil of poor recording technology... like a great old painting under thick layer of dust and dirt. But beauty is still there!
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt, nevertheless, regardless of whether I like how Rachmaninov plays the piano, I still love his music, and regard him as a composer far superior to Beethoven and Mozart, and equal to Chopin. (That's right, I have come to the conclusion that he is better than Beethoven and Mozart!). Rachmaninov's music is much more expressive and rich than Beethoven, and only the pro-German bias of current conservatories prevents us from grasping this truth.
KhagarBalugrak 1 year ago
@KhagarBalugrak
pretty ignorant comparison. i give myself a permission to call you an idiot
oknarbtal 1 year ago
@oknarbtal, Try thinking for yourself for a change instead of mindleswsly parroting the conclusions of the academics and musicologists. Mindlessly parroting anything doesn't make you sophisticated; it just shows that you either lack the capacity for independent thought, or else that you are too afraid to think for yourself.
KhagarBalugrak 1 year ago
He plays this as one unit, not bits, and makes total sense out of it.
And listen to 5:46 - the reappearance of the melody. Wow.
nextren 1 year ago
A swinging, soaring performance. "The piano disappears and - music appears." (Heine about Liszt)
nextren 1 year ago
I really don't like the performance and find Pogorelich's performance to be more romantic and better played while he brings it to higher level of perfection...
This is only my opinion ofcourse.
pila406 1 year ago
@tedly10027 Don't you find it is absolutely pointless to sit at your computer looking up recordings to compare great pianists in an attempt to make one look better then the other? I love Martha Argerich, she is my idol. I'm not saying she's better then anyone, I'm only saying I like her. Simple as that. I also love Richter and Horowitz. If you had said something along those lines I wouldn't have been as angered by your previous comments. Good day sir.
maternalheart66 1 year ago
What a genieus Rachmaninov,I understand why Richter wants to be better than him,lol!!!
loboris1995 1 year ago
I think this is officially my favorite youtube video even though it's just a picture of chopin. I wish I had a time machine so my ears could hear Rachmaninoff play the piano.
r4a2m0o 1 year ago
Ahhhh I love it. I love how he just sinks into those arpeggios. One of my favourite interpretations for sure.
ProkofievRules 1 year ago
He was a great musician not just a great pianist!, he performs as a gifted and inspired composer and I think is an unfair matching (Rach and Martha} she´s perhaps the greatest pianist of the 21th century (or one of the top 5) her musical facility is outstanding, but Rachmaninoff was a lot more, ( musically speaking), I cant imagine his inner ear, full of fantastic ideas and the world inside him, when you talk about a great composer you are talking about pure genius! (sorry for my english
visionfugitiva 1 year ago
6:04? Typical of pianists of that generation. Busoni did a similar change in the etude op.10 n5.
voolare 1 year ago
what a revelation!!
verystacy 1 year ago
The tone... the tone he gets is so nice.
nmvdw 1 year ago
what truly odd rhythmic stresses from the great sergei!
kasyapa 1 year ago
This sings and soars. Not just a bunch of piano notes.
nextren 1 year ago
I always wonder why he played around with the octaves at the beginning, but it's a titanic performance that is unique.
hophmi 2 years ago
@hophmi It connects to the rhythm at about 1:40, bringing the fierce first section and the lyrical second section together.
Speranza89 1 year ago
I'm just an intermediate pianist, so I would NEVER attempt to even try this piece, but I have never heard it played quite like this. I don't like the little hesitations and stops in the double octaves. Why was he doing that? Is that the way Chopin actually wrote it? I looked in the sheet music and it doesn't look like I'm hearing it here.
jjp009 2 years ago
its not written like that, and honestly i dont like it either. sounds dumb.
vaelrix 2 years ago
@jjp009 It ties the fast section to the slow section, listen around 1:39. Once you hear it, you hear him doing it everywhere in the piece. Genius.
JohnsonPollock 2 months ago
3:20 Rachmaninoff is good at double stops, violinists could learn from him. 5:00 I love how he plays these repeated notes with a slight crescendo. Technically impervious and original with a great rhythmic sense and phrasing. Hes just a good ole boy ill tell ya that.
Gargantupimp 2 years ago 3
@Gargantupimp Correction: He was just a great man.
Attritive 6 months ago
Of course, Rachmaninoff's great, but the octaves are.... interesting...
werq34ac 2 years ago
Interstingly original.
pipeorganloverNJP 2 years ago
This is one of the best recordings of this piece I've ever heard. I think it might have been the use of rubato that made it stand out (or maybe just the fact that it's played by Rachmaninov).
84Fish48Fish 2 years ago
Check out pogorelich either in the 1980 chopin comp or his later ones. My ear likes his a lot. The 1980 one is a good show of technical skill. I also like Rachmaninov, Idil Beret, and Argerich.
r4a2m0o 2 years ago
I like Rachmaninoff.
I don't care for this recording, although it was interesting to hear Rachmaninoff's interpretation.
Argerich is not as talented as a pianist as Rachmaninoff.
These, my friends, are facts.
PianoForteAndrew 2 years ago 11
@PianoForteAndrew
You are a great pedant, that's also a fact
smurstluer 1 year ago
@PianoForteAndrew lol
Likeafoxow 1 year ago
The elegance and the clarity in his playing is nothing short of a miracle, it is unattainable. I am beginning to believe he had the best technique of them all, and how fitting it is that someone with such a technique would practice pieces extremely slowly.
CoolWJL 2 years ago
It's crazy good,
Argerich has a powerful performance, but Iike Rachmaninov's so much too. It's elegant and shimmering,
ocsound1 2 years ago
This was the first recording I heard of this piece, and I've been looking for a modern recording since then, and there are good ones out there, but no one plays it like Sergei :)
tubeytubetuber 2 years ago
Best version of this I've ever heard. Argerich is impressively fast but doesn't have nearly as much emotional impact as Rachmaninoff's interpretation...
freakmod 2 years ago
He really knew how to play, clear singing tone in this one, and a natural sound and phrasing. He has his own sound i think
PianoTourist 2 years ago
haha! thanks
Classicmozayful 2 years ago
may i ask why my comment on how i think rachmaninov's technique was greater than horowitz's was removed?
Classicmozayful 2 years ago
I usually don't remove comments unless they are clearly hateful or provocative. I'm sure I didn't delete your comment... may be you posted it in another place? By all means - you are more than welcome to re-post it.
truecrypt 2 years ago
P.S. Your comment is still there - on the next page! ;)
truecrypt 2 years ago
hes so incredible
Classicmozayful 2 years ago 2
The way he introduces the chorale theme is magical. I might not agree with the rhythm-changed octaves, but such is music.
Haeronthegreat 2 years ago
tedly10027, I so agree...a beautiful performance
1sun1moon1 2 years ago
im often convinced that rachmaninov had an even greater technique than horowitz....
Classicmozayful 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm often convinced that Argerich has a greater technique than Rachmaninov
Liebromeistal 2 years ago
Liebromeistal,
Argerich is a great pianist, but she is not up to Rachmaninoff's level - either technical or creative.
truecrypt 2 years ago
that is true!!
flute1982 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
on what basis are you making that statement? It is pretty well known that Argerich can play things faster and with much more facility than any other pianist, dead or alive. Listen to any of the octaves passages or scale work in tchaikovsky concerto, her chopin op 10 no 1, her scarlatti sonata on youtube, the list goes on. Rachmaninoff does not have her level of dexterity.
Liebromeistal 2 years ago
My statement made on the basis of first hand knowledge of the subject. Argerich is an outstanding pianist but Rachmaninoff is much more than simply pianist-virtuoso. BTW there are many pianist who can play as fast as Argerich (seems like you're obsessed with this topic). Rachmaninoff could do everything Argerich does and many times over... Argerich (with all respect) doesn't play on Rachmaninoff's level.
truecrypt 2 years ago 17
@truecrypt i stumbled on yet another wonderfully individualistic performance of this work. wow! my personal view on argerich: I think it's untrue that she "outspeed" other pianists "dead or alive". that's just a result of HER fame based on her particular characteristic of playing very fast generally . but it does NOT mean she "out techniques" others. rubinstein's VERY EARLY recording is far CLEANER, more powerfully robust and lyrical but also at least as fast. as are many other past pianists'.
tedly10027 1 year ago
@truecrypt
Nobody plays on his level, except possibly for Lugansky in some things.
MrFullService 1 year ago
@truecrypt
Understand your point of view, but Argerich is not only having an incredible technique (fair enough), but, in my opinion, she is reinventing each piece she is playing, which is not always the case of other pianists, being Rachmaninoff, Richter, etc. Lucky we are of having so many great pianists to comment on ! ;-)
PHILBXL 1 year ago
@PHILBXL
Argerich is superb and amazing pianist! I would disagree about her "reinventing each piece". IMO she is firmly staying within commonly accepted performing traditions... and I say it in a positive sense! Rachmaninoff and Richter represent different approaches - "individualistic" and "objective". In many ways Argerich's style is closer to Richter's *recreating* than Rachmaninoff's *reinventing*. Of course, there is no clear line between those approaches.... rather our perceptions.
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt
Not untrue.. I quite agree with you !
PHILBXL 1 year ago
@truecrypt
Ach, I am such a Pletnev fan...
SurvivingBear 1 year ago
@truecrypt
Ach, I am such a Pletnev and Truecrypt fan...
SurvivingBear 1 year ago
@truecrypt "Rachmaninoff could do everything Argerich does and many times over" How would one even measure that? Are there things that Argerich has FAILED to do on a piano that Rach can do? If anything, Argerich's repertoire would suggest that she's more of a virtuoso than Rach was.
Rach is an exceptional composer, no one can deny that. But pianistically (in terms of technique), they're pretty much on par. Your preference of one's playing over the other is irrelevant in such a comparison.
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
Argerich didn't fail, but IMO she didn't reach Rachmaninoff's level of artistic impact either. If her playing impresses you more - so be it... but even from the strictly technical point of view - Rachmaninoff is still unmatched. Argerich is superb pianist, but Rachmaninoff is *much more* and it shows in his playing.
BTW I'm not the one who started this futile dispute, but since Argerich's fans became too aggressive I thought taking a cold shower would be good for some of them! :)
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "If her playing impresses you more - so be it" Her playing does impress me. So does Rachmaninoff's. I admire how differently they choose to interpret pieces. Argerich - to me- sounds more fiery. Rach is elegant in everything he plays.
"Argerich is superb pianist..Rachmaninoff is *much more*" You've almost repeated the exact same statement again without explaining how you've come to that conclusion.
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
I've come to my conclusions through the listening, playing and thinking.
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "I've come to my conclusions through the listening, playing and thinking" So it's basically your opinion of the matter rather than an actual fact?
Again, just to be clear, I am in no way downplaying Rach's technical abilities or lyricism etc. I'm just interested in knowing what you think Argerich is lacking in the technical field, since a lot of ppl consider to be a very gifted technician (amongst other things). Your opinion of her musicality isn't my concern. It's your own opinion
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
Yes, everything I say is my opinion...
Argerich doesn't lack much in technical field. It's just that her technical abilities are outstanding but not "unbeatable". All big virtuosi have their strong and "normal" sides. For example Grigory Ginzburg would probably exceed Argerich in all areas of piano technique, so what? He is barely known... So, her technique is great but not exceptional in comparison to Giants like Rachmaninoff, Hofmann or Richter.
truecrypt 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter wow these piano intellectuals! I suggest you lie down on the railway track and let the music roll over you. And then you stand up and try to figure out what happened to you. Why don't you upload your work and we can see or hear the difference
gzaenker 1 year ago
@gzaenker How would my work would make a difference in a comparison between Rachmaninoff/Argerich/Horowitz...?
And which part of our discussion would suggest that i haven't listened to this recording?
I downloaded an mp3 version of it after my 3rd or 4th listen :D
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@truecrypt "she didn't reach Rachmaninoff's level of artistic impact" That's because Rach was a composer and Argerich isn't. He's definitely more capable of impacting music than a pianist is. I wouldn't say that that's grounds to determine that he's a superior technician though.
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
Thank you for the explanation... I've already known it... ;)
I think you're trying to persuade me (and others) that Argerich is equal to Rachmaninoff in purely technical aspect... Yes, they both are great "speedsters", but Rachmaninoff could easily do everything Argerich does (technically). BTW in terms of "speed" many pianists could be in Argerich's company - Friedman, Hofmann, Busoni, Richter, Cziffra.. should we continue? Artistic qualities put Rachmaninoff above others.
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt I wouldn't call Rachmaninoff a speedster at all. And Argerich has a problem with speed. Some might consider it to be a positive aspect. I wouldn't necessarily say it is.
"many pianists could be in Argerich's company..should we continue?" I don't think we should. All of this is completely irrelevant. Hundreds of pianists can go as fast as Argerich, so what?
Virtuosity isn't only about speed, you know?
"you're trying to persuade me...Argerich is equal" why would i want to?
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
Yes, I know couple things about virtuosity... Seems to me like your initial comment challenged my view that "Rachmaninoff could do everything Argerich does and many times over". I do stay by my word and still believe it is true. I didn't want to demean Argerich in any way, but my goal was to cool down some hot-tempered Argerich's fans.
P.S. by "speedster" I mean an ability to play extremely fast, - don't confuse with "speeder" - the one who speeds up uncontrollably...
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "Seems to me like your initial comment challenged my view that "Rachmaninoff could do everything Argerich does and many times over""
I wouldn't say "challenged". Simply questioned. For one to say that person A can do everything that B does "and many times over". It would logically suggest that person B is lacking A LOT. I wanted to know what you thought that was. And, apparently, it has something to do with speed and clarity. Unexpected. Possible. Improbably imo :)
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
"It would logically suggest that person B is lacking A LOT"
Not at all! "B" can be a superb talent, but "A" could be a genius. Such situation doesn't demean "B" in any way.
Sigismond Thalberg was an exceptional pianist, but Liszt could do the same "and many times over"...
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "Not at all! "B" can be a sup..." I understand that you're not saying that Arg is technically weak. What i think you're saying is that if Rach/hoffman were (on a scale of 1 to 10) a 10 or even 11, then Argerich might be an 8. Meaning tht she's VERY GOOD, but not GREAT. Which also means that she can't do what a "10" can do on the piano. (i.e. She's failed in doing so). (continued)...
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
I think you simply don't want to understand what I was trying to say!
Argerich's virtuosity is great and she deserves all 10 on the scale for 1 to 10.
It's just that Rachmaninoff is above this scale.
She is a huge talent, but he is a genius.
Artistically and pianistically.
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "It's just that Rachmaninoff is above this scale"
That's why i said "or even 11 [out of 10]" which would mean that he is above that scale. Even though Rach, Horowitz and all the other pianists you mentioned came way before Argerich, and one might consider that they'd raised the bar for what being a great (or genius as you say) pianist is.
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@truecrypt Agree with your comment 1000% :-)
Rachmaninoff is above the scale in all respects, in musical creation and as a pianist.
Thanks for another extraordinary vid of Rach playing :-))
Bret6464 1 year ago
@truecrypt & according to you also, Rach/others surpass her in technique (which you defined earlier as the ability to play fast and clear). Ergo, Argerich is unable to play as fast or as clear as the afore mentioned artists. Am i getting this wrong again?
As for the Thalberg/Liszt comparison. I've never heard either play. I don't believe in making my mind up based on other peoples' opinions. Relying on others, might have ended us up hating works like "the rite of spring" and a lot of Prokofiev.
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
I was talking about "fast and clear" as only PART of what we (pianists) call technique. This is *limited* but commonly accepted definition among piano students and even professionals.
You don't have to rely on other people saying... Pick up Thalberg and Liszt scores and play through them... slowly... You'll be able to form a very clear picture who was a great talent and who was a pianistic genius. We didn't hear Chopin either, but would you doubt his pianistic abilities?
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "Pick up Thalberg and Liszt scores and play through them..." I'd then be comparing their skills in composition.
"We didn't hear Chopin either, but would you doubt his pianistic abilities" I wouldn't like to. It's just that we keep reading (of those days) that very few pianists could master works that are now played almost regularly. I think i'd read that of Schumann's fantasie. So one MIGHT assume...
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@truecrypt Furthermore, although it's difficult to doubt chopin/liszt's virtuosity, you'll never know whether YOU would have enjoyed their playing or not. Many pianists today are spoken very highly of who i find rather bland. If we hadn't had the means to record them today, they might have all become legends in the future (i'm pretty sure there's something wrong with the structure of that sentence :D)
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
I'm very much in agreement with you here! Yet, my teacher used to say that despite of constantly improving technical level ("mechanical abilities") of the majority of students and pianists, the quantity of truly *great masters* doesn't increase dramatically. Time will decide who will join the company of Immortals.
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt I agree with your teacher. I find it very difficult to listen to many contemporary pianists. I had attributed this to the fact that i was accustomed to listening to a specific pianists and was not used to the newer ones. I'm not sure it's the case though.
Yet, another reason i think they won't join the "immortals" is that the majority of the society (at least the one i've encountered) are not interested in this genre. Concert pianists will never be revered as they once were.
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@truecrypt "Artistic qualities put Rachmaninoff above others" If by artistic qualities you mean his ability to compose music, then i agree completely. But that's not what this discussion is about.
"Rachmaninoff could easily do everything Argerich does" I never said he couldn't :D I simply pointed out that Argerich has pulled off works that are -according to her and others- more challenging than Rach's compositions. So i was wondering why you stated the opposite (in sort of a factual manner).
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
These are your words: "If anything, Argerich's repertoire would suggest that she's more of a virtuoso than Rach was." I understood you said that Argerich is "more virtuoso" (whatever meaning you put in these words) than Rachmaninoff. My opinion is that she is not! Neither technically (an ability to play fast and clear), nor artistically. She is wonderful pianist, but I don't hear anything in her playing Rachmaninoff would miss in his own... regardless of what she pulled off...
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "she is not! Neither technically (an ability to play fast and clear)"
Finally! :D i think i got the answer i wanted.
So, you're basically saying that Argerich is lacking the ability to play as fast as others, & clarity that other pianists possess.
my next question should be quite obvious. What is your supposed knowledge of Argerich's ability to play fast based on? e.g. She struggles while playing X while Y plays it easily / She doesn't play....fast enough...
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
No, you're trying to "bend" what I said and argue with your own interpretation of what I said... :)
Argerich doesn't lack technical skills, but her exceptional technique IS NOT superior to techniques of THE GREATS, i.e. Rachmaninoff, Hofmann, Busoni, Richter, Gould, Horowitz, Cziffra, etc. Your initial statement was that she is "more virtuoso" than Rachmaninoff. It's not correct even if we discuss only technical/mechanical sides of piano playing.
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "Your initial statement was that she is "more virtuoso" than Rachmaninoff" No it wasn't. I was pointing out that if a comparison were reasonable (e.g. if we compared on the basis of the technical difficulty of repertoire), then Argerich would surpass since she's not only played Rach's works, but others as well.
That is until i found out your basis of comparison.
"her exceptional technique IS NOT superior to...THE GREATS" I never claimed so. I wouldn't compare them at all.
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter
Trying to decide who is "more virtuoso" on the basis of the technical difficulty of repertoire is ridiculous... Do you really think Rachmaninoff wouldn't be able to play anything Argerich's ever played? ;)
So, if one accepts Rachmaninoff's technical ability to play Argerich's repertoire (and I don't see the reason why he couldn't) we have no basis to continue this discussion, i.e. "who is more virtuoso"...
truecrypt 1 year ago
@truecrypt "Do you really think Rachmaninoff wouldn't be able to play anything Argerich's ever played?" I'm pretty sure he CAN do it. I'm just not sure i'd necessarily like it. I thought i'd love hearing Horowitz play Prokofiev, and although many do, I find his Prokofiev to be too messy for my taste. LangLang CAN play everything Argerich/Rach play, but...
But i'm also of the opinion that Argerich CAN play everything Rach plays. I've heard no reason to doubt it so far. Your preference of other..
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
@EmmJupiter versions of any piece is not proof that Argerich is any lesser a virtuoso than any of the pianists mentioned. At least that's the way i see it.
Hamelin - to me- sounds very uninteresting at times, but i wouldn't say that he's any lesser of a virtuoso then X, Y, Z...
Feel free not to reply to this if you don't want to. It's just an afterthought :)
EmmJupiter 1 year ago
I think, that speed often is like a bane, not a boon,at least for an "amateur listener" like me. I really love it, when I'm allowed to listen to any pianist, who is working out any oevre. The slower tempo gives me the chance to discover (by means of my ears not my eyes) all these wonderful details and correlations, the composer had written in his score...Speed is doubtlessly fascinating, but music is more than acrobatics-whereas acrobatics may become art too,especially at Cirque du Soleil !
MAZURKAofLIFE 2 years ago
Btw I love Argerich AND Rachmaninov and so many others too, but I hate "ranking" !!!
Let's enjoy the distinctive uniqueness of any great pianist and the different aspects, they show us within the same score - live and being alive is difference !!!
MAZURKAofLIFE 2 years ago 6
Good ear you have! Most musicians are loving le cirque
glantz91 2 years ago
Argerich's recording altogether is faster than Rachmaninoff's but that in many parts Rachmaninoff plays it quicker.
morvensky 2 years ago
@Liebromeistal I'm sorry but you have no clue... Argerich is an extremely talented pianist, but there are many who can match her speed. Rachmaninoff is in another leauge, even Argerich would agree with that. He was one of the best pianists of all time, one of the best composers of all time, and a renaissance man. Horowitz or sergio tiempo was the fastest playing Tchaikovsky octaves. Michelangeli playing Scarlatti, flawless. Pogorelich's ocataves in scherzo 3. This performance is incredible.
r4a2m0o 1 year ago
@r4a2m0o I thnk that While Argerich is rightly known in recent decades as one of the very best - alive - it is a stretch to consider her, on a general basis, as on a par with the likes of Rubinstein, Horowitz, Richter, Rachaminoff. Argerich plays CERTAIN selections extremely well (her Ravel Gaspard de la Nuit, her Liszt concertoin Eflat, her reputation as "faster and louder than anyone" is really because of her style of playing fast/loud from SECTION 2 SECTION in fast parts without "breathing".
tedly10027 1 year ago
@tedly10027 but in terms of actual "finger" speed within fast passages - she is not that much faster than others. compare RUBINSTEIN's very old recording: Chopin Prelude Bflat minor. with martha's, Rubinstein's is actually like lightning and extremely smooth and CLEAN compared to martha's. and BIGGER sounding. compare martha's to Richter's of this piece. you'll all be surprised at how richter leaves marth in the dust, musically and technically. she is VERY good but NOT as great as many others.
tedly10027 1 year ago
@truecrypt
Truecrypt definitely right about this one. No doubt that Argerich as an amazing pianist - but Rachmaninoff is a phenomenal musican and pianist. His ability to give life to melodic lines no matter how dense or polyphonic the texture is unreal. His tone, understanding of form and structure and color, and most importantly his rhythm are unparalleled and unique. Not to mention his ridiculous technique. Sometimes I doubt he was even human. On top of this he was a first rate composer.
jeremyajani 2 years ago
I love the way Rachmaninoff SETTLES on the ending notes of the lyrical phrases...it's a kind of "singing" to the "very last breath" that seems to be absent in so many modern performances...and the way he and other "ancient" pianists carry the main melodies in chords are so special.
tedly10027 2 years ago
Dear, Komodiak and Soami,
Thank you for such kind words of praise and expression of musical understanding.
I'm getting along in years, so I am rooted in a culture that no longer exists, except in the pages of old books and fading memories. Perhaps that's why I identify so closely with these recordings of legendary pianists, instrumentalists and singers?
I grew up in New York, and was treated to the best of everything -- a great privilege I'll continue to enjoy to my dying day.
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
Well, That explains it! A NEW YORKER.. lol.
The best of everything..and NOW you are still honored with the best of everything.. ..MY SINCERE DEVOTION.!
LOL
komodiakarma 2 years ago
PART SEVEN: I wish Rachmaninoff had recorded more and under more favorable circumstances. I have known people who heard him live many times, and wish I could have been one of them from what they've said.
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
You may wish to listen more to these immortal pianists such as Rachmaninoff and you may wish to write less of the twaddle you are prone to write....
Scott1916 2 years ago
PART SIX: I love and deeply respect Rachmaninoff, but almost always find his recordings of Chopin and Schumann generally disappointing. Sometimes, it all sounds just a little too fast --- almost perfunctory --- as though he couldn't wait to get it over with and move on to something more important. I get that feeling a lot with Pollini too -- as though it were all just too easy to interest him very much any longer.
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
We should listen to Rachmaninov as author rather than interpreter. His interpretation can not escape from its artistic and compositional sense and I believe that this is a good thing. I imagine that Chopin would have interpreted the music of Rachmaninov with its own style.
gisuona 2 years ago
As Wanda Landowska reportedly said once to Rosalyn Tureck:
"You play it YOUR way, and I'll play it BACH'S way."
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
I heard the same anecdote, only in the version I heard it was Howard Samuel to whom Landowska was speaking.
soami2u 2 years ago
i agree. lol btw, I always hated those pishna excersizes!
gnome667 2 years ago
Hello,
I replied to you at the site of this recording. You'll see it posted above. Apparently, you can't answer posters directly, except here?
Anyway, Pischna has saved many a set of overly ambitious fingers from early decline and atrophy. As the French would say, "On peut souffrir pour etre belle."
I imagine the Russians feel that way too.
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
PART FIVE: There are many recordings of this formidable work that are better. Truecrypt, himself, has given us one of the best recorded-live performances I've ever heard.
How I wish someone would post Guiomar Novaes' lyric, elegant, totally satisfying rendition here. It is less aggressive and animalistic than some of the more popular versions, but lacks nothing in virtuosity.
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
I second that, Pischnaholic! Novaes' version of the third Scherzo is beautiful, refined, with gorgeous tone and plenty of brilliance. Would love to find it here on YT...along with the rest of her discography (ever hear her Mazurkas--especially her "Emile Gaillard"?--such elegance and velvet sound, achieved with such effortlessness...the final trill is delicious!) I think you're right about Rachmaninov's performance here.
soami2u 2 years ago
PART FOUR: The great Annie Fischer almost spoiled her otherwise brilliant, sensitive and powerful recording of this work by rushing through this last set of octaves like an express train passing through a local subway stop. Even so, Fischer's performance is generally more satisfying than this one.
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
PART THREE: A ritardando in the final octave passage is surely implied in this music, because It adds greatly to the drama by bringing a sense of portent that adds even more power and energy to the coda when it is finally unleashed.
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
PART TWO: His treatment of the chorale is broad and noble, but so broad that in places it threatens to break the tension and thwart the momentum of the whole.
The coda is absolutely brilliant. I particularly like the way he retards the grand octave passage that immediately precedes this electrifying "cross country gallop at breakneck speed."
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
PART ONE The opening octave passage here sounds quirky in the extreme. I don't understand why Rachmaninoff chose to distort the rhythm as he did. It is certainly not what we would normally expect to hear, which may be insightful and refreshing at times, but it is troubling in this performance.
Rachmaninoff was, of course, a consummate virtuoso, and could do anything he wanted to do. Why he chose to state the octave theme this way is anybody's guess. Frankly, it borders on the grotesque.
Pischnaholic 2 years ago
Dear Pischnaholic. Frankly, I don't know who you are! But I LOVE the you critique!
You are obviously someone whom is able to discern excellence in a pianist.~ But I must say that your" Way of putting it.".. is a that of a consummate word virtouso.
Hopefully you don't mind my appreciating your ability to discect with such precision and yet I still giggle at some of your expressions! I truly enjoy your comments..UH...I am ~ Quirky in the extreme!! ( not a stalker..lol)
komodiakarma 2 years ago
The notes in bars 26 to 39 can be seen as one unit, just like those in 40 to 55, thus making both the bars from 26 to 39 a phrase, and the bars from 40 to 55 too. To make this phrasing clear, you should syncopate between bar 39 and 40. A short pause actually makes it two units.
In contrary, you can say bars 26 to 55 form one unit, which is a reason not to syncopate.
(The numbers of the bars might be incorrect)
nmvdw 2 years ago
would you like to elaborate more?
morvensky 2 years ago
I think he syncopated the octaves (0:25) for a phrasing.
nmvdw 2 years ago
I'm just humbled to be able to listen to rachmaninoff perform.
and wow it sounds brilliant. The odd syncopated octaves aside, I love his interpretation.
and god can rachmaninoff compose ^^ him and chopin were on par with eachother i'd say :)
Just my opinion, don't kill me :P
Barnaldomort 2 years ago
I want to add 6:09 to the changes Rachmaninoff made to the original text: the octave cascade started an octave higher than written. Busoni did a similar thing at the end of the black key etude recording. Perhaps it was fashionable in those days to lengthen hard octave passages and show octave playing skills.
voolare 3 years ago
He had that golden tone-even shines through these old records-what an artist he was -
Bruce88keys 3 years ago