Impossible to say anyone was/is/will be better than Gilels on Rach 3rd, other than Rachmaninoff himself performing. I always believed Horowitz was the best, but after hearing this, I know this is the one performance for all time.
Thank you for uploading this and all your other great clips :-)
@SSSLAWWWA If you have the recording, it would be a great gift to us fans of Gilels and piano playing of the highest levels. Michelangeli was probably the only other to make the Rach 4 work
Did Sviatoslav Richter ever perform the Third? I know he did the 1st and 2nd, not sure about the 4th. It's interesting to hear this very unsentimental, brilliantly played and fast paced account by Gilels, which strikes me as similar to the composer's own recording.
No, unfortunately neither 3d nor 4th. I agree with you - Gilels follows Rachmaninov here, and as for me it's the most interesting aspect of this wonderful recording!.. When asked about his favourite musicians Gilels mentioned Rachmaninov and Gieseking... By the way, in Horowitz' score of this concerto there were Rachmaninov's own notations!.. He studied it step by step with Rachmaninov!..
Rachmaninoff's rendition of the 3rd is probably one of the most highly regarded, but...after listening to Horowitz, I wasn't too sure if it was one of my favorite recordings. Maybe its because I was used to Horowitz's, but it almost seems that too many passages are quiet. The ossia cadenza is an example I can think of right now.
You know, that's almost exactly what I mean! What I mean is that Gilels showed Rachmaninov's interpretation from a different point of view, something like that... Anyway this recording by Gilels gave me "explanations" of the one by Rachmaninov. Too many passages are quiet - so Gilels play them loud, you know... I think it' very interesting to compare these two records!..
I just listened to Rachmaninoff's recording of his Third, and agree with you; too much is obscured and "quiet." Could it be a bad recording job as well? In any event, the sound on the Gilels reveals an interpretation close to the composer's but more dynamically varied and exciting.
Gilels almost seems darned jealous of Richter. Neuhaus preferred R. better and he personally thought he could never outshine R. What do you think about that?
You know, music is no powerlifting, so I believe it's no good to look for a champion here... First of all Gilels was so sorry in early 50's that he was an international superstar and Ricter wasn't due to political and all iron curtain things. After his american loud sucess in 55, Gilels stunned reporters - "just wait until Richter comes!" Quite so!.. And then Richter outshone him... There are several piano geniuses, we must remember them all without trying find out who is "more tough", you know.
I too love Gieseking's work; many of his recordings are unequaled in my experience, e.g., the Schumann Davidsbundlertanze, the works of Debussy and Grieg to mention just a few, Do you know his live performances of the Rach 2 and 3 with Mengelberg? Horowitz considered Rosenthal, Paderewski, Rachmaninoff, Cortot and Michelangeli to be the greatest, according to interviews and a friend of mine who knew him.
Of course, I know these Gieseking works with Mengelberg. Frankly, I'm not sure it's a masterpiece... And Horowitz - I admire him! So what he loved I love too!
Gilels was a great pianist without doubt, but this performance is too fast.
MartinPadderborn 1 month ago
Thank you for posting. My very favorites - Horowitz, Gilels, and Gutierrez.
Chopibeetho 5 months ago in playlist Gilels Rach 3
It's amazing that despite the not state-of-the-art recording Gilels famed golden tone still stands out.
301250 1 year ago
No! Gilel is the absolute master! There are some excellent pianists but non surpass Gilel.
mc0558 1 year ago
Impossible to say anyone was/is/will be better than Gilels on Rach 3rd, other than Rachmaninoff himself performing. I always believed Horowitz was the best, but after hearing this, I know this is the one performance for all time.
Thank you for uploading this and all your other great clips :-)
Bret6464 1 year ago 2
Are there any records of gilels playing the 2nd concerto?
mehandas 2 years ago
No, he didn't play the 2nd. He played the 4th...
SSSLAWWWA 2 years ago
@SSSLAWWWA If you have the recording, it would be a great gift to us fans of Gilels and piano playing of the highest levels. Michelangeli was probably the only other to make the Rach 4 work
SJM1977 4 months ago
Did Sviatoslav Richter ever perform the Third? I know he did the 1st and 2nd, not sure about the 4th. It's interesting to hear this very unsentimental, brilliantly played and fast paced account by Gilels, which strikes me as similar to the composer's own recording.
billyguns2 2 years ago
No, unfortunately neither 3d nor 4th. I agree with you - Gilels follows Rachmaninov here, and as for me it's the most interesting aspect of this wonderful recording!.. When asked about his favourite musicians Gilels mentioned Rachmaninov and Gieseking... By the way, in Horowitz' score of this concerto there were Rachmaninov's own notations!.. He studied it step by step with Rachmaninov!..
SSSLAWWWA 2 years ago
Rachmaninoff's rendition of the 3rd is probably one of the most highly regarded, but...after listening to Horowitz, I wasn't too sure if it was one of my favorite recordings. Maybe its because I was used to Horowitz's, but it almost seems that too many passages are quiet. The ossia cadenza is an example I can think of right now.
Sinfoniette 2 years ago
You know, that's almost exactly what I mean! What I mean is that Gilels showed Rachmaninov's interpretation from a different point of view, something like that... Anyway this recording by Gilels gave me "explanations" of the one by Rachmaninov. Too many passages are quiet - so Gilels play them loud, you know... I think it' very interesting to compare these two records!..
SSSLAWWWA 2 years ago
I just listened to Rachmaninoff's recording of his Third, and agree with you; too much is obscured and "quiet." Could it be a bad recording job as well? In any event, the sound on the Gilels reveals an interpretation close to the composer's but more dynamically varied and exciting.
billyguns2 2 years ago
Gilels almost seems darned jealous of Richter. Neuhaus preferred R. better and he personally thought he could never outshine R. What do you think about that?
Sinfoniette 2 years ago
You know, music is no powerlifting, so I believe it's no good to look for a champion here... First of all Gilels was so sorry in early 50's that he was an international superstar and Ricter wasn't due to political and all iron curtain things. After his american loud sucess in 55, Gilels stunned reporters - "just wait until Richter comes!" Quite so!.. And then Richter outshone him... There are several piano geniuses, we must remember them all without trying find out who is "more tough", you know.
SSSLAWWWA 2 years ago
I too love Gieseking's work; many of his recordings are unequaled in my experience, e.g., the Schumann Davidsbundlertanze, the works of Debussy and Grieg to mention just a few, Do you know his live performances of the Rach 2 and 3 with Mengelberg? Horowitz considered Rosenthal, Paderewski, Rachmaninoff, Cortot and Michelangeli to be the greatest, according to interviews and a friend of mine who knew him.
billyguns2 2 years ago
Of course, I know these Gieseking works with Mengelberg. Frankly, I'm not sure it's a masterpiece... And Horowitz - I admire him! So what he loved I love too!
SSSLAWWWA 2 years ago
Can you believe that about there was a time when I thought Gilels was a old, Russianized version of Lang Lang???
Sinfoniette 2 years ago
No, I'll never believe you!!!
SSSLAWWWA 2 years ago
Maybe opposite?!?!?!?!?!?
pianotalent 2 years ago
Thank you so much for sharing this. I can finally listen to this recording...
Sinfoniette 2 years ago
You are so welcome!
SSSLAWWWA 2 years ago