This is the greatest piano performance of romantic/20C transition music yet recorded. Period. And it's even more special because its 1950s analog recording sound is very, very beautiful. Listen to this through a great audiophile system and you'll be surprised how much you can hear and how smooth and warm the sound is. Glorious trebles on the piano.
I simply state such a level of perfection, the maniacal care of Arturo's interpretation in all his aspects. And pay attention at the perfect integration with the orchestra, they perform really as a whole (ultimately, its a concerto for piano and orchestra), making this perfomance magic. And most important, while listening over and over, I feel more and more all the aspects of this masterpiece's performance.
Sudbin has moments of brilliance, but not even close to ABM's level of genius. Nevertheless, to hear the 1926 version after all these years is a good thing..
There is a general consensus that Michelangeli's Rachmaninov #4 is the greatest performance of piano music ever recorded. Simply stated, it is the musical equivalent of the Sistine Chapel. In this astonishing performance, Michelangeli raises the outer limits of pianistic accomplishment and artistic expression to a level no other performer has ever achieved.
@CoolCurzon I find that Rachmaninoff No. 4 is the hardest concerto out of the three and Rhapsody. The voicing, the balance, so many things need to be "spot on" for the audience to just "get it." A lot of people were puzzled upon first hearing of this and thanks to Arturo's perfectionist attitude we can finally hear the beauty. The 1926 original remains unchampioned unlike this work and it's more logical. I wonder when will we truly hear Rachmaninoff No. 4?
@CoolCurzon, I would say this is going too far. There are plenty of piano recordings which are as good as this, and some that are better. Emanuel Ax's more recent recordings of the Chopin Concertos and the Chopin Ballades, Walter Gieseking's recording of Gaspard de la Nuit, Rachmaninov's recordings of most of what he recorded, and others, are even better than this.
I will say that Michelangeli brings great pristine perfection to what he plays, but there's very little expressivity somehow.
@KhagarBalugrak I disagree. Yes, he has a totally different sound to say a Horowitz and the emotional handling is quite different. But Benedetti is unique and his technique is uncanny. I find him incredibly expressive. Like some of my other favorite keyboardists, he doesn't fit the (conservative) conservatorium idea of great romantic pianism. But he is very great.
@philxyz200, I was a piano major at Eastman, so I can tell you that expressive romantic pianism in the conservatories is a thing of the past. Pure technical facility, combined with a dry adherence to the score, is what's being taught to pianists who go to conservatories these days.
Michelangeli is great, don't get me wrong; I just want more expressivity and "juice" in music than what he brings. There's plenty one can learn from Michelangeli, whatever your preferences.
@KhagarBalugrak It's a bit sad if that's what the convervatories are teaching. Maybe that's why some of these pianists of the 1950s have retained their fame - they were idiosyncratic and personal in style. Better that than whole graduating classes of identical-sounding cloned musicians. In the end, all else being equal, which pianists one loves has to come down to personal preference and background I suppose. I love this recording.
@philxyz200, it's very sad. My teacher at Eastman was different - he was the only real musician among all the piano teachers - but the rest of the piano faculty were technicians. In composition, it's even worse; I can't get into any program at all, since they reject anyone that doesn't exclusively compose atonal or semi-atonal ugliness. They want composers that produce BANALITY. It's infuriating and mystifying at the same time.
@KhagarBalugrak Given the post modern trend in composition in the 1980s (Steve Reich etc), I'd be surprised 12-tone is all there is. If you look at some of the less mainstream music faculties I'm sure you could find a more broad minded composition program - after all, many music faculties are supporting jazz studies, even rock, in a bid to remain relevant. This may mean a less trad faculty though.
@philxyz200, it's not 12 tone...but it's extremely dissonant, ugly stuff. It's also very banal, very safe, very sterile stuff...they don't have room for someone like me that wants to compose in styles ranging from 19th century to 15th century, and also Central Asian/ancient Greek-type styles. I hope you're right in saying that there are more broad-minded programs out there.
@KhagarBalugrak Mmm. If you are taking influences from those styles and reworking or recombining in a novel way, I'm sure that would come under a post mod heading surely. If you are composing strictly in a period style, then maybe you could represent that in terms of an analytic investigation or an homage to those styles so your piece becomes a thesis. Perhaps you should find some sympathetic music academics and talk to them about how to frame what you want to do.
@philxyz200, I suppose, but what I'm writing has so little in common with Western music that professor's I've talked to had no desire to see me write anything, ever again. The problem isn't that I'm recombining styles, it's that all music schools are very intolerant of anything not totally Western; they may have composers that write pieces that take a couple superficial elements of non-Western music, but the core of their music remains always Western.
@CoolCurzon I would agree, if Rach4 would be a great piece of music. However, it is just good, no way to compare it to real great art such as Sacre du Printemps or Liszt h-moll Sonata or Beethoven op. 132 3rd movement and few others.
...an exquisite performance of a concert that is, in the fingers of most other pianists, difficult to like. Michelangeli at his finest. The depth of his attack on the first chords, the champagne perlando, throughout the subtle cantabile. Does anybody know why he didn't record any other Rachmaninoff concerts, the Preludes and the 2nd Sonata?
@dialecticon I think it can be inferred that Michelangeli wasn't interested with Rachmaninoff. He chose to play, out of all the preludes, romances, suites, symphonic dances, etudes-tableaux, sonatas, concerti, variations - the 4rth concerto. The 4rth concerto, which is as un-Rachmaninoff as Rachmaninoff gets.
That tells us a lot about how Michelangeli felt about Rachmaninoff's output.
@demosj So what? He re-interpreted an under-appreciated concerto by a significant composer. Nothing wrong with that, I call it innovative. Why perform the same stuff that everybody else is doing? Great performers should show us things they can hear in a piece that others cannot. Benedetti does just that.
His unwillingness to do retakes and the "unevenness" are reasons why I love this performance so much. There is so much spontaneity and freshness that this really does have a feel of a live performance. It is electric! I've never heard a performance in it's league and I have all of the recordings of this work. Coupled with the Ravel, I can't think of a finer piano concerto album.
This is the best performance of this wonderful and underrated piece, galaxies away from other performances. The mercilessly unsentimental but bewilderedly intense approach of ABM is surprisingly refreshing, the extatic passion and dreamy ponderings are all in perfect balance. His first rate technique and musicality is completely at the service of the wonderful psychology of this masterpiece, never to impress, please or smart out the listener. Another one for the desert island, for shure.
It's too bad Michelangeli washed his hands of retakes, ensemble problems and final balances.(read jackgibbonspiano fascinating comment) Just listen to the messy 9:19!!
I love ABM's playing (he was 37) but the balances are often poor--especially in louder passages-- where the orchestra sometimes sounds distant.
Equally appealing compared to Rachmaninoff's own rendition, but in Rach's the balances are terrific!
a glorious recording of this splendid and relatively underperformed work. the sweep, lushness of sound and total control the composer must have imagined is all here.
I've been a classical music fan for several years to date, and ,like many fans that have a "bearer", this is "my" concert.
I listened it once again. Oh! this is really a sublime piece.Its not easy to understand, as miliona1re said that it suffered from lack of success (just as an example, think of the sublime Gerswin's "Raphsody in blue" that also at first was not accepted by the public).I was able to catch its sublime greatness. Oh my!
A story about these recording sessions (which also included the Ravel G major)was told me via Manoug Parikian, the concertmaster of the Philharmonia on this recording: apparently Michelangeli refused to do retakes. He just sat down and recorded everything without a break and then left the studio, and the orchestra then had the embarrasing task of patching over their mistakes without him (some clumsy editing in the some of orchestral tuttis can be heard to back this story up, if it's true).
I owned the vinyl of this 40 years ago, when I was on college (along with the Ravel Concerto on the flip side). Back then, I didn't quite see how the whole thing fit together. What followed seemed to be a let-down after that ultra-heroic opening. I now know (partly owing to the great sound here) that the problem wasn't the piece, but own lack of musical maturity. I now think this work not only far exceeds the other Rach. concerti, but ranks with those of Bartok. Truly a 20th c masterpiece
The greatest No.4 ever recorded, IMO; my favorite Rachmaninoff concerto is No. 3, followed by No. 2, then No. 4; finally, No. 1. I think No. 4 is too often neglected.
Oh dear, billy, I have to disagree with your list of favourites as number ONE is possibly MY favourite! Also I gather Rachmaninov himself had a soft spot for no.1: he wanted Horowitz to play it and Horowitz promised him he would one day, but he never did :(
My ranking is by no means qualitative; i.e., from "best to worst." It is simply a statement of my preferences; there are passages in each that are unsurpassed, but my favorites remain my favorites. 2'02" in this one, e.g., is a magical moment. I do think No. 3 is the best overall, and for me the most riveting.
this is legendary. it puts rachmaninov's performance quite in the shade IMHO. that is saying alot. perhaps it is the weakest of the rach. concertos but michelangeli is so good he turns it into a masterpiece. TY so much miliona! finally somebody posted it!
@cattleman6420012000 There is, however, a live recording (from the same year I think) that I got only recently on CD. It's not much different from this one -- perhaps a tad more spontaneous, if not as perfect technically.
Absolutely stunning playing of the Master.
abmsghost1 2 months ago
Irraggiungibile
TheZdp1 4 months ago
One of the coolest concerto ever written!!
canzo0378 5 months ago
Without a doubt one of the finest pianists of all time TY m for posting this gem.
paulostroff99 6 months ago
Michelangeli is the most dangerous-looking musician since Gesualdo
SepiaLatimanus 8 months ago 3
@SepiaLatimanus :))
maxtanz 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the greatest piano performance of romantic/20C transition music yet recorded. Period. And it's even more special because its 1950s analog recording sound is very, very beautiful. Listen to this through a great audiophile system and you'll be surprised how much you can hear and how smooth and warm the sound is. Glorious trebles on the piano.
philxyz200 8 months ago
Comment removed
philxyz200 8 months ago
This recording was the first classical record I ever heard. I was 14, and I still find it haunting.
Majik47 9 months ago
Comment removed
checallo 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I simply state such a level of perfection, the maniacal care of Arturo's interpretation in all his aspects. And pay attention at the perfect integration with the orchestra, they perform really as a whole (ultimately, its a concerto for piano and orchestra), making this perfomance magic. And most important, while listening over and over, I feel more and more all the aspects of this masterpiece's performance.
checallo 10 months ago
'tis grand indeed! Thank you so much for uploading. Cheers from Sydney Australia
horationelson57 10 months ago
Comment removed
checallo 10 months ago
Comment removed
checallo 10 months ago
listening to this, maybe one can find a way towards enlightenment
checallo 10 months ago
CAPOLAVORO DI PERFEZIONE!
Bellarmino1 11 months ago
Sudbin has moments of brilliance, but not even close to ABM's level of genius. Nevertheless, to hear the 1926 version after all these years is a good thing..
CoolCurzon 1 year ago
There is finally a recording of the original 1926 score by one of the best pianists alive today, Yevgeny Sudbin.
CoolCurzon 1 year ago
@CoolCurzon Nowhere near Arturo though. The 1926 is very logical but he lacks that magic that's present here.
tchykovsky 1 year ago
This one is a fantastic performace not only by a great pianist but by a "very" great pianist!
iguarni 1 year ago
There is a general consensus that Michelangeli's Rachmaninov #4 is the greatest performance of piano music ever recorded. Simply stated, it is the musical equivalent of the Sistine Chapel. In this astonishing performance, Michelangeli raises the outer limits of pianistic accomplishment and artistic expression to a level no other performer has ever achieved.
CoolCurzon 1 year ago
@CoolCurzon I find that Rachmaninoff No. 4 is the hardest concerto out of the three and Rhapsody. The voicing, the balance, so many things need to be "spot on" for the audience to just "get it." A lot of people were puzzled upon first hearing of this and thanks to Arturo's perfectionist attitude we can finally hear the beauty. The 1926 original remains unchampioned unlike this work and it's more logical. I wonder when will we truly hear Rachmaninoff No. 4?
tchykovsky 1 year ago
@tchykovsky yes it is so different to his other three and has a disjointed feel at first hearing but after a few takes it is truly beautiful
afertyus1000 11 months ago
@CoolCurzon, I would say this is going too far. There are plenty of piano recordings which are as good as this, and some that are better. Emanuel Ax's more recent recordings of the Chopin Concertos and the Chopin Ballades, Walter Gieseking's recording of Gaspard de la Nuit, Rachmaninov's recordings of most of what he recorded, and others, are even better than this.
I will say that Michelangeli brings great pristine perfection to what he plays, but there's very little expressivity somehow.
KhagarBalugrak 10 months ago
@KhagarBalugrak I disagree. Yes, he has a totally different sound to say a Horowitz and the emotional handling is quite different. But Benedetti is unique and his technique is uncanny. I find him incredibly expressive. Like some of my other favorite keyboardists, he doesn't fit the (conservative) conservatorium idea of great romantic pianism. But he is very great.
philxyz200 8 months ago
@philxyz200, I was a piano major at Eastman, so I can tell you that expressive romantic pianism in the conservatories is a thing of the past. Pure technical facility, combined with a dry adherence to the score, is what's being taught to pianists who go to conservatories these days.
Michelangeli is great, don't get me wrong; I just want more expressivity and "juice" in music than what he brings. There's plenty one can learn from Michelangeli, whatever your preferences.
KhagarBalugrak 8 months ago
@KhagarBalugrak It's a bit sad if that's what the convervatories are teaching. Maybe that's why some of these pianists of the 1950s have retained their fame - they were idiosyncratic and personal in style. Better that than whole graduating classes of identical-sounding cloned musicians. In the end, all else being equal, which pianists one loves has to come down to personal preference and background I suppose. I love this recording.
philxyz200 8 months ago
@philxyz200, it's very sad. My teacher at Eastman was different - he was the only real musician among all the piano teachers - but the rest of the piano faculty were technicians. In composition, it's even worse; I can't get into any program at all, since they reject anyone that doesn't exclusively compose atonal or semi-atonal ugliness. They want composers that produce BANALITY. It's infuriating and mystifying at the same time.
KhagarBalugrak 8 months ago
@KhagarBalugrak Given the post modern trend in composition in the 1980s (Steve Reich etc), I'd be surprised 12-tone is all there is. If you look at some of the less mainstream music faculties I'm sure you could find a more broad minded composition program - after all, many music faculties are supporting jazz studies, even rock, in a bid to remain relevant. This may mean a less trad faculty though.
philxyz200 8 months ago
@philxyz200, it's not 12 tone...but it's extremely dissonant, ugly stuff. It's also very banal, very safe, very sterile stuff...they don't have room for someone like me that wants to compose in styles ranging from 19th century to 15th century, and also Central Asian/ancient Greek-type styles. I hope you're right in saying that there are more broad-minded programs out there.
KhagarBalugrak 8 months ago
@KhagarBalugrak Mmm. If you are taking influences from those styles and reworking or recombining in a novel way, I'm sure that would come under a post mod heading surely. If you are composing strictly in a period style, then maybe you could represent that in terms of an analytic investigation or an homage to those styles so your piece becomes a thesis. Perhaps you should find some sympathetic music academics and talk to them about how to frame what you want to do.
philxyz200 8 months ago
@philxyz200, I suppose, but what I'm writing has so little in common with Western music that professor's I've talked to had no desire to see me write anything, ever again. The problem isn't that I'm recombining styles, it's that all music schools are very intolerant of anything not totally Western; they may have composers that write pieces that take a couple superficial elements of non-Western music, but the core of their music remains always Western.
But thanks for the idea.
KhagarBalugrak 8 months ago
@CoolCurzon I would agree, if Rach4 would be a great piece of music. However, it is just good, no way to compare it to real great art such as Sacre du Printemps or Liszt h-moll Sonata or Beethoven op. 132 3rd movement and few others.
cantkeepitin 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cantkeepitin,i don't like to compare what I consider masterpieces (like the ones you cite): to me they are ....masterpieces, and that's all ;)
checallo 9 months ago
This is a wonderful performance by a great pianist. Thank you for posting.
OregonDreams 1 year ago
1:16 what is going on?
skryabyn 1 year ago
Beautiful and spine tingling.
bigbono12 1 year ago
The beginning soloist measures are unbelievable ...
ThaSchwab 1 year ago
Great as ABM was his repertoire when compare with Richter,Gilels, Rubinstein et al. was kind of limited due to hs obsession wth perfection.
301250 1 year ago
...an exquisite performance of a concert that is, in the fingers of most other pianists, difficult to like. Michelangeli at his finest. The depth of his attack on the first chords, the champagne perlando, throughout the subtle cantabile. Does anybody know why he didn't record any other Rachmaninoff concerts, the Preludes and the 2nd Sonata?
dialecticon 2 years ago
@dialecticon I think it can be inferred that Michelangeli wasn't interested with Rachmaninoff. He chose to play, out of all the preludes, romances, suites, symphonic dances, etudes-tableaux, sonatas, concerti, variations - the 4rth concerto. The 4rth concerto, which is as un-Rachmaninoff as Rachmaninoff gets.
That tells us a lot about how Michelangeli felt about Rachmaninoff's output.
demosj 1 year ago
@demosj So what? He re-interpreted an under-appreciated concerto by a significant composer. Nothing wrong with that, I call it innovative. Why perform the same stuff that everybody else is doing? Great performers should show us things they can hear in a piece that others cannot. Benedetti does just that.
philxyz200 8 months ago
Michelangeli has been a great pianist, perhaps the greatest. And between all his performances, this is the best !!!
abaco62 2 years ago
As far as I'm concern, this is the benchmark all other performances must be compared to...
It's like the perfect day, perfect place, and the perfect pianist all came together to produce this magical performance..
lousvr 2 years ago
The climax after 6.10 is impossibly spine tingling. A truly amazing piece of pianism as it is so loud, but not at all harsh.
chasedspleen 2 years ago 4
His unwillingness to do retakes and the "unevenness" are reasons why I love this performance so much. There is so much spontaneity and freshness that this really does have a feel of a live performance. It is electric! I've never heard a performance in it's league and I have all of the recordings of this work. Coupled with the Ravel, I can't think of a finer piano concerto album.
auerod 2 years ago 8
Ravel, what a sublime fine musical art!!!
I agree
checallo 9 months ago
This is the best performance of this wonderful and underrated piece, galaxies away from other performances. The mercilessly unsentimental but bewilderedly intense approach of ABM is surprisingly refreshing, the extatic passion and dreamy ponderings are all in perfect balance. His first rate technique and musicality is completely at the service of the wonderful psychology of this masterpiece, never to impress, please or smart out the listener. Another one for the desert island, for shure.
ericpaulpianist 2 years ago 5
I love this
frederickfrederikfre 2 years ago 2
It's too bad Michelangeli washed his hands of retakes, ensemble problems and final balances.(read jackgibbonspiano fascinating comment) Just listen to the messy 9:19!!
I love ABM's playing (he was 37) but the balances are often poor--especially in louder passages-- where the orchestra sometimes sounds distant.
Equally appealing compared to Rachmaninoff's own rendition, but in Rach's the balances are terrific!
ipmoic 2 years ago
a glorious recording of this splendid and relatively underperformed work. the sweep, lushness of sound and total control the composer must have imagined is all here.
hothairybtm4u 2 years ago 7
@hothairybtm4u I REALLY like your name BTW
1fattyfatman 1 year ago
Yes 1957, thank you.
miliona1re 2 years ago
Comment removed
checallo 9 months ago
I've been a classical music fan for several years to date, and ,like many fans that have a "bearer", this is "my" concert.
I listened it once again. Oh! this is really a sublime piece.Its not easy to understand, as miliona1re said that it suffered from lack of success (just as an example, think of the sublime Gerswin's "Raphsody in blue" that also at first was not accepted by the public).I was able to catch its sublime greatness. Oh my!
checallo 9 months ago
A story about these recording sessions (which also included the Ravel G major)was told me via Manoug Parikian, the concertmaster of the Philharmonia on this recording: apparently Michelangeli refused to do retakes. He just sat down and recorded everything without a break and then left the studio, and the orchestra then had the embarrasing task of patching over their mistakes without him (some clumsy editing in the some of orchestral tuttis can be heard to back this story up, if it's true).
jackgibbonspiano 2 years ago 3
wow! that makes this peformance even more awe-inspiring! thank you for sharing jack.
brianCIM 2 years ago
@jackgibbonspiano obviously, as we all know, Maestro Michelangeli didn't make a single mistake in one take.
klavierflame 1 year ago
4:40--------->da brividi
frederickfrederikfre 2 years ago
Michelangeli - thank you.
PHDROD 2 years ago 3
I owned the vinyl of this 40 years ago, when I was on college (along with the Ravel Concerto on the flip side). Back then, I didn't quite see how the whole thing fit together. What followed seemed to be a let-down after that ultra-heroic opening. I now know (partly owing to the great sound here) that the problem wasn't the piece, but own lack of musical maturity. I now think this work not only far exceeds the other Rach. concerti, but ranks with those of Bartok. Truly a 20th c masterpiece
moosatious 2 years ago 3
The greatest No.4 ever recorded, IMO; my favorite Rachmaninoff concerto is No. 3, followed by No. 2, then No. 4; finally, No. 1. I think No. 4 is too often neglected.
billyguns2 2 years ago 3
I agree with you that this recording is the best. The proof is that EMI has been selling this over 50 years.
Only the greatist one can play No.4 well.
klabm7 2 years ago
Oh dear, billy, I have to disagree with your list of favourites as number ONE is possibly MY favourite! Also I gather Rachmaninov himself had a soft spot for no.1: he wanted Horowitz to play it and Horowitz promised him he would one day, but he never did :(
jackgibbonspiano 2 years ago
My ranking is by no means qualitative; i.e., from "best to worst." It is simply a statement of my preferences; there are passages in each that are unsurpassed, but my favorites remain my favorites. 2'02" in this one, e.g., is a magical moment. I do think No. 3 is the best overall, and for me the most riveting.
billyguns2 2 years ago 2
The 4 concerts of Rachaninoff are all beautiful ,everyone has something different.I'm very attached to the second personally.
miliona1re 2 years ago
yes i agree with you. i didn't mean to imply this is a bad piece. my personal favorite is no.3, but no.2 is great also.
brianCIM 2 years ago
this is legendary. it puts rachmaninov's performance quite in the shade IMHO. that is saying alot. perhaps it is the weakest of the rach. concertos but michelangeli is so good he turns it into a masterpiece. TY so much miliona! finally somebody posted it!
brianCIM 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
klabm7 2 years ago
I agree with you.
I think that THIS is the level of Michelangeli.
klabm7 2 years ago
6:05 = musical orgasm
voolare 2 years ago
oh yes...legendary recording of the 4th rachmaninow concerto by michelangeli,tremendous in every sense.
u n i q u e!
berlinzerberus 2 years ago 4
Well, Rachmaninoff playing doesn't get much better than this!
weikko79 3 years ago 2
1958, with Ettore Gracis and Philarmonia orchestra
miliona1re 3 years ago
Thank you so much for making me know the orchestra also.
checallo 9 months ago
This is absolutely wonderful. I trust that this is his earlier recording?
cattleman6420012000 3 years ago
I believe he only made one recording of this piece.
weikko79 3 years ago
You are absolutely right. I am sorry I got muddled.
cattleman6420012000 3 years ago
@cattleman6420012000 There is, however, a live recording (from the same year I think) that I got only recently on CD. It's not much different from this one -- perhaps a tad more spontaneous, if not as perfect technically.
weikko79 1 year ago
@weikko79 Thanks very much for letting me know.
cattleman6420012000 1 year ago
There is one more recording exist,
with Orchestra di Roma della RAI and Franco Caracciolo on May 12 1956. By the way , I think this recording was made in 1957,not in 1958.
klabm7 2 years ago