William KAPELL plays RACHMANINOV Piano Concerto no.3 (2-2)

[88alan8800]

excellent, i was waiting for this one to be uploaded for some time

[paulostroff99]

Awesome! TY SSS for posting

[pingalaida]

Thanks for posting. A truly remarkable interpretation; and one in keeping with Rachmaninoff's philosophy of performance (the culminating point, the "point") as opposed to gushy performances by pianists such as... well I won't mention any names that have already been mentioned...just a splendid performance.

[fierydog]

@pingalaida I sort of disagree. Surely Horowitz Gilels Argerich and Rach themselves play the 3rd better than Cliburn, but his performance is different and deserves its credit. Poetic must be the word, its not gushy. (If we follow that logic then we end up like the critics who named Rach himself overly sentimental) If we are talking about fulfilling the composers ultimate intent, then I see myself agreeing with you. Every pianist has their own individuality, and I am lauding Cliburns take on it

[pingalaida]

@fierydog I admire your openmindedness, my friend; however, Rachmaninoff was a revolutionary performer, in that he insisted that performances should be true to the score and to the composer's intent; this is whether he was performing his own works or the works of others...Schumann, Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Grieg, whatever; this was revolutionary in his day - today we take it for granted - to me the minimum a performer can do when playing Rachmaninoff's works is to adhere to that ideology......

[fierydog]

@pingalaida True, music is so subjective. At the end of the day I like Van Cliburn's take as much as I did at the beginning of the day. Van Cliburn is like candy to me (privileged listening or slight deviation of the standard performance), whereas I would choose a performer such as Horowitz for a "default" or "the standard" for interpretation. However, this page is dedicated to the absolutely amazing (sad that he died so young) pianist William Kapell. So let us admire his work :)

[pingalaida]

@fierydog thank you for being so patient with me; I need to be less opinionated, more openminded; and you are right on all counts; please forgive me for being pompous...

[fierydog]

@pingalaida Oh no, being opinionated is just fine. So long as we don't come across like Cui did when he critiqued Rachmaninoffs Symphony which threw Sergei into depression. I like opinionated conversations with people about piano repertoire! Both parties learn a lot.

[pingalaida]

@fierydog Actually if you read the biography by Bertensson, Leyda, Satina, you find that Cui's criticism of Rach's first symphony was not what threw him into depression, my friend. In Rachmaninoff's own words, he clearly states that he was deeply distressed and heavily depressed that the work did not please *him* after the first rehearsal (p. 73 of the biography). Critics and newspaper abuse had little effect on Rachmaninoff's self-confidence and self image.

[pingalaida]

@fierydog Right, the bio by Bertensson mentioned above includes a letter from Rachmaninoff which says, yes, he was displeased because it didn't sound the way he wanted it to; also Glazunov's drunkenness is mentioned as a factor, but really Rachmaninoff was pretty ok when critics dismissed his works, for whatever reason; this didn't phase him. The popular take on the story is that Rachmaninoff was depressed because he displeased the critics, but that is far from the actual truth...

[fierydog]

A poetic interpretation, but not as poetic as Cliburn. Here I go getting myself into trouble comparing pianists again...