Rachmaninoff plays Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No. 1: Ib

[4hm3dimr4n]

Is this seriously a recording of Rachmaninoff playing? I'm just wondering because the quality is REALLY nice for having been recorded so long ago.

[violavonschnitzel]

@4hm3dimr4n It is indeed Rachmaninoff playing, he is known to have made a number of recordings in his time. However, I understand that this particular recording has been remastered extensively (in 2007, I believe) from the original recording, which was created in 1939.

[Justincraft66]

kappell played it better than rach. rach very much admitted that he often often liked other pianists interpretations of his works.

[estagonandfire]

I would cut of one of my own testicles to see him live.

[michaelmishaw]

RICH!!!!

[predoje]

O MY GOD! This is a giant of pianist!!! I never heard his interpretation of 1st concerto. I listen to 2th and and 3th concerto but his playing of his own 1st concerto its amazing! It was breath taking.

[Chateaubriand26]

If I remember well, Rachmaninoff said that Hoffman played quite better than himself his own compositions.

[deadly990]

finall a video with an appropriate number of dislikes

[mymusic11ful]

Being able to hear Rachmaninov play Rachninov amazes me each time I listen. I have heard the discussions of other important pianists on Rach's prodigious technique. Wouldn't the interpretation of the composer himself be the best, especially since he is also the performer?

[pianofan24]

@mymusic11ful Not necessarily..... Rach's interpretation of his own beautiful 2nd concerto (my favorite of the set) leaves me underwhelmed. The work is just so much more beautiful and full of lovely nuances that seem to be absent from his performance... it's almost like he's holding back in awe of his own wonderful creation. Not so with concerto #1 - this is absolutely fantastic playing.

[sarapresley1813]

wow. AMAZING

[TJFNYC212]

Although music is open to any interpretation............ most pianists who romanticize and schmaltz Rachmaninov would do well to listen to his playing of his works. His technique and tone are unique and non schmaltz. Horowitz and Argerich seem to have learned well.

[pietalpha2]

I give thanks every day for Youtube and its ability to give me the choices of such music to listen to and to compare the great performances

[3456789bp]

Fantastic!

[mmoynan]

THANK YOU for uploading these. A true gift to both fans of Rachmaninoff and those who haven't a clue who he is!

[cristetoile11]

Ce concerto è pure poésie.

[estagonandfire]

perfect

[Therachh3]

lol sometimes i think people write comments for the thumbs up or down

[pianoenthusiast11]

wonderful! after hearing this stupendous cadenza we can gain some idea of how he would have played the great chordal cadenza of the 3rd concerto - his way with the shorter cadenza in the 3rd concerto is wonderful, but what a treat if we could have heard his way with those great chordal textures. that said, this is chordal playing which is out of this world!

[anthony9325]

I agree. Also, I can't help thinking that the recordings we have do not reflect exactly the way Rachmaninov intended the pieces to be played.

I read somewhere that Rachmaninov complained about having to play a movement of one of his concertos too fast because it had to fit on a 78 rpm record.

Maybe he was even more expressive in some of his live, unrecorded, performances.

[sexandthesuburbs]

Hm, he holds onto that last chord after the orchestra ends. What do you guys think of that?

[estagonandfire]

if rach played it this way, it is how its meant to be played

[werq34ac]

Sometimes, even the Rach can be outplayed. Such is the case in Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto, in which Rachmaninoff himself said that Horowitz played it better than he did.

[estagonandfire]

Even Rachmaninoff might have thought that, but it was Rachmaninoff who composed the music, and had an exact idea of how it was MEANT to sound. That version must therefore be the correct version, eventhough he said another's version was better.

[werq34ac]

@estagonandfire I'll give an even better example. There is a recording of Prokofiev playing his Diabolical Suggestion Op.4 no. 4 on youtube. Since it's Prokofiev playing his own work, it must be correct, right? Actually, Richter's playing absolutely blows away Prokofiev's. "Prokofiev didn't realize the devil he had created until Richter played this"

[estagonandfire]

point is, it might sound better, but the correct version will be the original one.

wether you like another's interpretation or not better I cannot determine, thats up to the listener.

[werq34ac]

@estagonandfire Let's leave it at this. If Rachmaninoff plays it, it will most likely be a "correct" version, regardless of what he plays. Rachmaninoff was a fantastic performer. But there can be better, but still "correct" interpretations even if it's not the composer's

[operasanger]

Your arguments are total nonsense. 1) Whoever gave you the idea that there was ever just one "correct" version? This is art - not science. 2) Furthermore, your argument assumes that Rach the pianist could play as well, or better, than Rach the composer could write. Says who? What happens when you assume? 3) Finally, if the composer/pianist himself said another pianist played it better than the composer/pianist, who the hell are you to argue? 4) Better - by definition - is even more "correct".

[estagonandfire]

I'll give you an example from cooking.

If you have a recepe for frying bananas. That exact version of frying bananas will be the correct one.

Now say that some guy uses the same recepe and adds salt. This is no longer the original one, although it might taste better and the original chef agrees.

Might sound mental, but I belive it to be true.

[operasanger]

Unfortunately, your latest argument is even more illogical than your first one.

Take your own example: Who said my recipe for frying bananas is "correct"? It could be lousy. I certainly didn't invent bananas! Rach didn't invent piano!

Again, you would do very well to avoid absolutes - and even better to listen when composers speak.

Rach never said his playing of the piece was "correct". You did. It was simply the first.

Artists themselves often revisit pieces to make them "correct".

[estagonandfire]

Ill take it from the start.

The perfect version of this music piece, will be how Rachmaninoff plays it here, because it was how he "heard" it inside his head.

Another musician playing it differentley, although it might sound better, it will not be how Rachmaninoff intended it to listen like.

And I realize we are arguing in circles, so lets end it. we will never agree. And now dont argue with that please x)

[operasanger]

You are correct about one thing: we will never agree. Because you simply cannot defend your indefensible position. The composer/pianist himself rejects & refutes your claim! But you pretend to forget that. Become an artist first before trying to tell other artists how artists think.

Reasonable folks can disagree, but they must start with a reasonable premise, then maintain reason. You have done neither. So unless & until you demonstrate a capacity for that, there's nothing else to discuss.

[estagonandfire]

Another long blob of clever words, try to read what I am writing. And being an artis dosnt necesarilly mean you know how artists think.

Opera is gay btw. Have a nice day x)

[operasanger]

Another predictably ignorant response from you? Why? Seriously? Why do you even bother?

So by "clever words" you mean "facts you cannot refute"? But we'd already established that long ago, so your return for more embarrassment is just that - your return for more embarrassment - and nothing more.

As for opera being "gay"? Your capacity for becoming even more childish and immature (and illiterate) with each new post is just sad.

I would call you gay. But that would be an insult to gay.

[estagonandfire]

Hah. Seems I am not the only one being immature eh? People with half a brain down own themselves mate. You faith in your own words is so great, that you fail to understand what it is I have written in my messages.

My socalled ignorant responses are a results of having to read the increasingly boring messeges of a selfrighteous homosexual operasinger, who thinks himself an artist. But you are only yet another anonymous piece of crap in the crowd.

[operasanger]

Back for another illiterate and inane ramble, I see? Terrific. How much longer would you like to impress us with your ignorance?

It was bad enough that you proved you know nothing about music, now you prove you know nothing about the English language!

Furthermore, your post screams of the self-hating of a classic closeted homosexual. I pity you. I pity your stupidity. I pity your obnoxious ignorance.

But do continue.

Your posts allow us to laugh out loud at you - while we pity you.

[estagonandfire]

And besides, your "facts" are as objective as my opinion is. I think you are just upset because the rest of the world isnt as homosexual as you are x)

I know you will write some crappy comeback, which can only be described as patheitc.

Or perhaps because I wrote this you won't?

Good day now x]

[operasanger]

Once again, just more self-hate and self-loathing from the angry and illiterate, closeted homosexual? Seriously - seek help!

It's not your fault that you are homosexual and can't accept it. It's probably your upbringing. But it IS your fault that you are an asshole. Blame no one but yourself.

You need to work on that. For you it's the real problem. There have been many happy & successful gays in the world - but precious few, if any, happy & successful assholes.

As you keep proving.

[werq34ac]

I did say lets leave it at that, but seeing as you didn't,

Rachmaninoff was a fantastic performer, and likewise, this an absolutely fantastic performance. However, Rachmaninoff is human and makes mistakes. There are likely small details that are incorrect. If someone plays the exact same as Rachmaninoff but with less mistakes, then it will make it more "correct"

[werq34ac]

And as operasanger said, there is more than one "correct" version. Rachmaninoff played a fantastic Rach 3. So did Horowitz. So did Argerich (although not as fantastic as Horowitz in my opinion.) So you see, there are 3 "correct" versions. All are fantastic to listen to. All are fantastic interpretations and can't get any better.

[estagonandfire]

I did say lets leave it at that, but seeing as you didn't

Rachmaninoff's version was the original one, that is why i say it is the true / correct / real / original version of this piece of music, the other you interpretations, which you mention, are not the composer's interpretation of the music, so they are not the correct version because they are different from the original one.

[werq34ac]

@estagonandfire Finally found an irrefutable example. Have you heard Rachmaninoff's playing of his Concerto no. 2? The piece was too long for recording back then, and so Rachmaninoff had to play it extra fast to make it fit. It does not sound how Rachmaninoff wanted to sound. However, it is Rachmaninoff's playing. By your reasoning, it is correct. However, Rachmaninoff himself said that he wished he could play it at the right tempo.

[Hervinbalfour]

@werq34ac Where did you read that Rachmaninoff himself said that? i keep hearing different reasons as to why Rachmaninoff played his concertos fast. But how does one explain the fact that Rachmaninoff played EVERYTHING fast. Listen to his recordings of solo works. They are lighting speed.

It was typical to purchase a 78 set with 5 or more disc. Why would the record label be concerned with recording space when it was going to be spread out over several disc??? Something to think about.

[lilly763]

@estagonandfire : And what if the composer plays it differently every time (as most musicians do)? What if he changes his mind about how he wants the piece to sound (this concerto in particular was heavily revised)? Which is the "correct" version then?

[estagonandfire]

rachmaninoff's version is the best, and it makes me feel good when I know that this is how the composer wanted the music to sound.

[kaleidoscopio2006]

maybe an echo?

[jondahlkvist]

It's just amazing that it's possible to hear himself play - it's gorgeous! So beautiful.

[Galantski]

A giant among giants, as great as any pianist ever).

And his own music stubbbornly withstands the assaults of time, despite critics (who are they? can anyone recall their names? lol) who once mocked it because it wasn't Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc.

Yet 65 years after his death, Rach's music is still relevant & there everywhere we turn: new CDs, concerts, classical radio, etc.

Thanks for uploading. BTW, what's the yr. of the recording & with what conductor/orchestra?

[miliona1re]

Grandissimo compositore ,grandissimo pianista

[goldberg72]

cadenza stupenda come tutto il resto

[4c00h]

wow the 1st concerto played by him, awesome! thanks