There is the famous story that when Horowitz played this concerto in Hamburg, Germany for the first time, the conductor suddenly turned around in amazement on hearing Horowitz playing the opening chords. And right after the octave ending the concerto, the audience went nuts and even began ripping out the seats in the music hall.....Horowitz wasn't even suppose to play that day, but the scheduled pianist got sick and the conductor even told Horowitz to just follow his beat, but was he amazed.
I would have found this more amusing when I was obsessed with this piece and all those pianists at 16. However now at 40 its fun. Argerich rips through everything, kinda ridiculous though, isn't it?
if only i could play this as fast as horowitz, i would be proud, but the best interpretation was defitately by the pianist at 4:00. It made sense of the ascend before the fast descend and slowed to a perfect end ready for the orchestra to take over
...the octaves, ferociously beaten out like this, still surprisingly expressive...you can recognize Richter, and Argerich, and Horowitz by the style, blindfolded...and Lang Lang surprisingly ineffective...
Interesting comparison in terms of bravura ...thanks ! in this respect you should add the interpretation of Earl Wild here on YT with Arthur Fiedler/Boston Pops...properly amazing....
vidvimedia (dot) com < I personally think you guys should listen to this guy if you like mellow mood music.. this is a single person playing, but personally i think his piano skills are very nicely played, crappy advertisement or not. this guy is good, and you can't doubt it. Im not spamming, just listen to vanilla lillies, and you'll see what i mean, very mellow custom pieces by him.
these octaves are only a cadenza. to show off and be exciting. i'm sick of people saying faster is not as well "interpreted" . . . There is nothing to interpret here. No harmony, no voicing, nothing but technique and excitement. . . Therefore Martha's are the best, they are the fastest, cleanest, and most impressive. Horowitz is good, but he has random, in inappropriate pedal changes, and the GF's at the end are messy.
I fondly remembered Argerich, because I attended a live version of this concereto of hers many years ago, when she just became famous for her dazzling octaves, but still went on concert tours (mid 1970's). But her 1994 version sounds much less convincing and even a bit mechanical. In fact closer to Horowitz mechanics. Olga Kern resembles the old Argerich the best en even Tsjaikovsky price winner Cliburn is still excellent. Lang Lang I normally detest, but here he surprises me positively.
I posted a video of more accounts of this passage, this time with a recording of Argerich from the mid-70s. I must say, I don't hear Kern in it much at all and rather liked Argerich's later account (though I will say that I liked the earlier one better). Kern's recording suffers from a second-rate orchestra and conductor, and for the sake of making room in my collection, I'm contemplating just giving it away.
I also found Lang Lang quite awful (as I almost always do) and plan to do the same with his recording. Barenboim's orchestral support was much better than what Kern got, But this time it was the pianist who repulsed me. Oh well, agree to disagree perhaps?
I've got all Mozart pianoconcertos in two sets: on LP by Barenboim and on CD by Ashkenazy. Barenboim makes it too mellow, Askenzazy puts more Mozartian vigor in it. So I do not feel Barenboim is the right person for Tchaikovsky either. So we agree on Lang Lang 99% of the time :-D on PS I only focussed on the soloist and Martha played with the "Residential Orchestra"in the mid-70's over here
I would definitely agree to Ashkenazy's set being better! I usually find that Barenboim's playing is also rather too mellow. I saw him in recital last year and he played all Liszt. I love Liszt, whose music can be quite dramatic and exciting. Barenboim seemed to do his best to make it sound mellow and beautiful, no matter what it should sound like. His conducting, on the other hand, can be quite good and his recent Beethoven and Bruckner cycles have surprised me.
I think the fastest ones are Horowitz's and Argerich's, but I think speed is not equal to interpretative quality. Moreover, is not possible to judge a recording of a piece that lasts more than 30 minutes, like this one, by listening to just a couple of measures.
Agreed on all points. However, once in a while a short, vapid display of technique can be fun. Why else would anyone play Liszt's Grand Galop Chromatique or Islamey, or many other 'empty' displays of technique?
Horowitz's octaves were obviously the fastest at 12 seconds approx, but I'm not sure whether they were the best. I like alot of speed but then straightening out towards the end and really articulating those last notes.
Most of these pianists could have played it fast, but then we would have a horse race and not music.
My vote goes for Richter, because to me the work he did closer to his 80s was marvelous - and it seems the recording is taken just from that period of his life.
For me... Horowitz - very time. He won the 'octaves race' - Rachmaninoff's own words. Richter, though, I also love for the perfect marriage between power and clarity. I though the weakest was actually Ashkenazy here. And I love his Chopin etudes more than any other recordings I have heard.
Interesting that some pianists add a chord to the last octave; is this written or just interpolated? Horowitz is the clear winner, even though his piano is the most out of tune; Pogorelich, Richter, Cllburn and Ashkenzay are also marvelous and very musical.
Musical performance can be divided into two categories. The first category includes musicians like Argerich, Cziffra, Liszt, who are determined to make us aware of their relationship with their instrument. The second category includes musicians who try to bypass the whole question of the instrument and create the illusion of a direct link between themselves and the music and help the listener to achieve a sense of involvement with the music itself.The perfect example of that Sviatoslav Richter.
Horowitz, as expected, plays it faster than he could. Meanwhile, Richter is surprisingly reserved, and Argerich (not surprisingly) plays the last part probably at the limit of human ability.
I think isolating a 10-15 second passage and then comparing different versions to see who's 'the best' is silly. All of these performers have or had a titanic technique.
I just happen to love this passage, but would never let it alone determine who's interpretation of the entire concerto is "the best". I own each of these recordings in their entirety and appreciate each for their respective insights. I simply thought the video to which this is a response was a novel idea. This is not meant to be a serious means by which one may decide who is the best pianist, but simply a short fireworks display, if you will.
Haven't heard it yet. I have so many recordings of this piece that I really only get another when I hear great things about it. Matsuev's is so new that it's not in the Penguin Guide and hasn't had a lot of talk on Amazon yet. I'll have to look into it, though Sudbin also seems promising and I have also been meaning to give him a listen.
He does take the last octave jumps at break-neck speed, but I've always been partial towards Argerich myself. Both recordings are gems in my collection.
Yes, Volodos takes it much slower than Horowitz, but plays the GF-GF-GF sequence without slowing down!!!
There is an older recording of Argerich which is faster than the '94 one. Also Sergio Tiempo's octaves unleash in this concerto is amazing (on YT). Pogorelich and Gilels have outstandingly fast and powerful octaves, but decided to play them at a slower tempo.
I have the Argerich recordings with Dutoit and Kondrashin but I just like the '94 recording better as a whole. It's never so recklessly fast that sour notes start flying and the recorded sound is quite nice. The Dutoit recording is great, but Argerich's technique is no less impressive in the '94 Abbado recording and it sounds better, to me at least.
Yaay Olga Kern!
LousyPianist 2 months ago
There is the famous story that when Horowitz played this concerto in Hamburg, Germany for the first time, the conductor suddenly turned around in amazement on hearing Horowitz playing the opening chords. And right after the octave ending the concerto, the audience went nuts and even began ripping out the seats in the music hall.....Horowitz wasn't even suppose to play that day, but the scheduled pianist got sick and the conductor even told Horowitz to just follow his beat, but was he amazed.
MoebiusTripper 3 months ago
I like Horowitz and Rubinstein best.
ThePVGS1 3 months ago
Van Cliburn takes the cake - he actually plays the notes and doesn't abuse the pedal. Giles also was. tatestful
DarwinIsInCharge 5 months ago
sorry ... it's so interesting, but than prevailed the memory of Saint-Saëns "pianists" in his Carnival of the Animals
numestube 7 months ago
I would have found this more amusing when I was obsessed with this piece and all those pianists at 16. However now at 40 its fun. Argerich rips through everything, kinda ridiculous though, isn't it?
shilloshillos 10 months ago
if only i could play this as fast as horowitz, i would be proud, but the best interpretation was defitately by the pianist at 4:00. It made sense of the ascend before the fast descend and slowed to a perfect end ready for the orchestra to take over
hrspwr69fstbck 10 months ago
...the octaves, ferociously beaten out like this, still surprisingly expressive...you can recognize Richter, and Argerich, and Horowitz by the style, blindfolded...and Lang Lang surprisingly ineffective...
fredericfranc 10 months ago
Richter, crystal clear as always :)
MrYou2ber 11 months ago
Horowitz and Gilels, in that order, are the best....
MrSammyscroll 1 year ago
Horowitz\Toscanini performance will be never overpassed. Legendary! Richter's one is very interesting, different.
BSA2417666 1 year ago
ARGERICH, Horowitz... then the rest.
sonozoltan 1 year ago
Interesting comparison in terms of bravura ...thanks ! in this respect you should add the interpretation of Earl Wild here on YT with Arthur Fiedler/Boston Pops...properly amazing....
brunoparis12 1 year ago
Interesting comparison..you should add in this the interpretation of Earl Wild here on YT with Arthur Fiedler/Boston Pops...amazing.....
brunoparis12 1 year ago
Argerich by far the best...
ueblondon 1 year ago 2
@ueblondon Martha is so amazing!
MrYou2ber 11 months ago
lol... i love the speed that horowitz can handle..
same things with his rach 3
pinkfloyddwc 1 year ago
Definitely Horowitz
hugoagogo13 1 year ago
vidvimedia (dot) com < I personally think you guys should listen to this guy if you like mellow mood music.. this is a single person playing, but personally i think his piano skills are very nicely played, crappy advertisement or not. this guy is good, and you can't doubt it. Im not spamming, just listen to vanilla lillies, and you'll see what i mean, very mellow custom pieces by him.
hector665 1 year ago
Richter!
Haeronthegreat 1 year ago
horowitz the master
4785689 1 year ago
these octaves are only a cadenza. to show off and be exciting. i'm sick of people saying faster is not as well "interpreted" . . . There is nothing to interpret here. No harmony, no voicing, nothing but technique and excitement. . . Therefore Martha's are the best, they are the fastest, cleanest, and most impressive. Horowitz is good, but he has random, in inappropriate pedal changes, and the GF's at the end are messy.
davidbaker03 1 year ago
LOL at Horowitz! Amazing!
I wish Alexei Grunyuk and Marc-Andre Hamelin recorded this concerto (either studio or live performance). I'd love to hear THEIR octaves in this!
OrangeSodaKing 1 year ago
Comment removed
babytuckoo1223 1 year ago
Horowitz comes in at the end and just destroys all of them lol!!!!!!!
RoccoOnPiano 1 year ago 10
Best for last.
demosj 1 year ago
MOST perfect clear almost WITHOUT pedal was GILELS's version ...1:49
MOST interesting with new IDEAS ... Lang Lang...2:22
MOST MESSY Horowitz...4:45
All others were in standard ... even Richter...
sam0xin 1 year ago
Stephen Hough without doubt
pannie1000 1 year ago
Richter was my favorite, for his clarity, but then Horowitz totally kicked ass.
MusicDirector25 1 year ago
although it's true, the octaves are to show off
Prepared2Die 1 year ago
Notice how similar Lang Lang and Barenboim are.
gwizvideo 2 years ago
!
horowitz for the win
bboymango 2 years ago
GILELS!
Horovitz, Richter, Van Cliburn, Gavrilov......
DERFNAM72 2 years ago
I fondly remembered Argerich, because I attended a live version of this concereto of hers many years ago, when she just became famous for her dazzling octaves, but still went on concert tours (mid 1970's). But her 1994 version sounds much less convincing and even a bit mechanical. In fact closer to Horowitz mechanics. Olga Kern resembles the old Argerich the best en even Tsjaikovsky price winner Cliburn is still excellent. Lang Lang I normally detest, but here he surprises me positively.
donthuis 2 years ago
I posted a video of more accounts of this passage, this time with a recording of Argerich from the mid-70s. I must say, I don't hear Kern in it much at all and rather liked Argerich's later account (though I will say that I liked the earlier one better). Kern's recording suffers from a second-rate orchestra and conductor, and for the sake of making room in my collection, I'm contemplating just giving it away.
physicsgeek21690 2 years ago
I also found Lang Lang quite awful (as I almost always do) and plan to do the same with his recording. Barenboim's orchestral support was much better than what Kern got, But this time it was the pianist who repulsed me. Oh well, agree to disagree perhaps?
physicsgeek21690 2 years ago 2
I've got all Mozart pianoconcertos in two sets: on LP by Barenboim and on CD by Ashkenazy. Barenboim makes it too mellow, Askenzazy puts more Mozartian vigor in it. So I do not feel Barenboim is the right person for Tchaikovsky either. So we agree on Lang Lang 99% of the time :-D on PS I only focussed on the soloist and Martha played with the "Residential Orchestra"in the mid-70's over here
donthuis 2 years ago
I would definitely agree to Ashkenazy's set being better! I usually find that Barenboim's playing is also rather too mellow. I saw him in recital last year and he played all Liszt. I love Liszt, whose music can be quite dramatic and exciting. Barenboim seemed to do his best to make it sound mellow and beautiful, no matter what it should sound like. His conducting, on the other hand, can be quite good and his recent Beethoven and Bruckner cycles have surprised me.
physicsgeek21690 2 years ago
@donthuis Argerich wins... as always. No one matches her.
elgar34 1 year ago 2
I think the fastest ones are Horowitz's and Argerich's, but I think speed is not equal to interpretative quality. Moreover, is not possible to judge a recording of a piece that lasts more than 30 minutes, like this one, by listening to just a couple of measures.
Bach1Beethoven 2 years ago 7
Agreed on all points. However, once in a while a short, vapid display of technique can be fun. Why else would anyone play Liszt's Grand Galop Chromatique or Islamey, or many other 'empty' displays of technique?
physicsgeek21690 2 years ago 4
Because they are great pieces to listen to.
123eldest 2 years ago
@Bach1Beethoven my you've spoken as a true "high browed" sage of musical wisdom...
utubuser10 1 year ago
I like Argerich also, but no one will ever beat Horowitz for speed.
MoebiusTripper 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
samtheman264 3 months ago
Horowitz's octaves were obviously the fastest at 12 seconds approx, but I'm not sure whether they were the best. I like alot of speed but then straightening out towards the end and really articulating those last notes.
JohnEBPiano 2 years ago
Van Cliburn = Lazy Homo. Period.
mattandtrissy 2 years ago
@mattandtrissy i imagine you can play better than a lazy homo.....
abajour 2 years ago
why didn u let the coda with horowitz?
eltachimetro 2 years ago
Argerich is still my favorite, although I also liked Richter and Van Cliburn. Horowitz sounded absolutely terrible.
Beethovens7th 2 years ago
how do u put lang lang with horowitz and martha !!
costellopianist 2 years ago 2
Can you please put up MICHELANGELI playing the whole 3rd mvt? PLEASE!!!
PianoBoy308765 2 years ago
I was not aware Michelangeli ever played this concerto, let alone recorded it.
physicsgeek21690 2 years ago
Ah, never mind. I see another video has his octaves.
physicsgeek21690 2 years ago
Nelson Freire also does these octaves beautifully. As does Bronfman -- frighteningly fast and powerful.
goldenrocknroll 2 years ago
Most of these pianists could have played it fast, but then we would have a horse race and not music.
My vote goes for Richter, because to me the work he did closer to his 80s was marvelous - and it seems the recording is taken just from that period of his life.
Vipsas 2 years ago 2
15 epic fails, Horowitz win. =D Bravo, Vladimir, you showed unsurpassable speed and appropriate precision!
f1f1s 2 years ago
Lang Lang
aznarro 2 years ago
For me... Horowitz - very time. He won the 'octaves race' - Rachmaninoff's own words. Richter, though, I also love for the perfect marriage between power and clarity. I though the weakest was actually Ashkenazy here. And I love his Chopin etudes more than any other recordings I have heard.
MIKE1238673 2 years ago
I like Gavrilov's best!!..
Fun to hear!
Thanks for posting!
chrispiano1 2 years ago
i think lang lang played it best
iorixs 2 years ago
Comment removed
flute1982 2 years ago
I Love Argerich and Horowitz performance *-*
LittleArgerich 2 years ago 2
Argerich
michal1810 2 years ago
Interesting that some pianists add a chord to the last octave; is this written or just interpolated? Horowitz is the clear winner, even though his piano is the most out of tune; Pogorelich, Richter, Cllburn and Ashkenzay are also marvelous and very musical.
billyguns2 2 years ago
Toscanini's set with Horowitz is the best for my ear.
phantom4087 2 years ago 4
HOROWITZ TOO!!!!
lisztbest 2 years ago 3
Musical performance can be divided into two categories. The first category includes musicians like Argerich, Cziffra, Liszt, who are determined to make us aware of their relationship with their instrument. The second category includes musicians who try to bypass the whole question of the instrument and create the illusion of a direct link between themselves and the music and help the listener to achieve a sense of involvement with the music itself.The perfect example of that Sviatoslav Richter.
Liebromeistal 2 years ago
Copyright Glenn Gould ;)
HonestJago 2 years ago
Well pick up, mate!!!
arnolddao 2 years ago
Cliburn's are amazing too
musicman24 2 years ago
I love Pogorelich's recording of this concerto
musicman24 2 years ago
Pogorelich and Ashkenazy but I can say all the performances are wonderful
Brunildilla 2 years ago
Horowitz, as expected, plays it faster than he could. Meanwhile, Richter is surprisingly reserved, and Argerich (not surprisingly) plays the last part probably at the limit of human ability.
Phi1618033 3 years ago
What are you saying??! I hope to have not understood well: Horowitz plays it faster than he could.
Probably you have drunk some special wine...
kiedrosky 2 years ago
He's right, Horowitz played it faster than he could.
GeorgeMaxwellDuPre 2 years ago 3
I agree, he did play them faster than he could.
NeoMalikov 2 years ago 2
I think isolating a 10-15 second passage and then comparing different versions to see who's 'the best' is silly. All of these performers have or had a titanic technique.
Pogouldiwitz 3 years ago
I just happen to love this passage, but would never let it alone determine who's interpretation of the entire concerto is "the best". I own each of these recordings in their entirety and appreciate each for their respective insights. I simply thought the video to which this is a response was a novel idea. This is not meant to be a serious means by which one may decide who is the best pianist, but simply a short fireworks display, if you will.
physicsgeek21690 3 years ago
Okay, I'm cool with that. Have you listened to Matsuev's version? I'm not his biggest fan but he really is spectacular in this Concerto.
Pogouldiwitz 3 years ago
Haven't heard it yet. I have so many recordings of this piece that I really only get another when I hear great things about it. Matsuev's is so new that it's not in the Penguin Guide and hasn't had a lot of talk on Amazon yet. I'll have to look into it, though Sudbin also seems promising and I have also been meaning to give him a listen.
physicsgeek21690 3 years ago
Volodos is the best! What a descent (GF-GF-GF)! It seems so easy and crystal clear! Horowitz and Argerich are impressive also.
kandaharjacob 3 years ago 9
He does take the last octave jumps at break-neck speed, but I've always been partial towards Argerich myself. Both recordings are gems in my collection.
physicsgeek21690 3 years ago
Yes, Volodos takes it much slower than Horowitz, but plays the GF-GF-GF sequence without slowing down!!!
There is an older recording of Argerich which is faster than the '94 one. Also Sergio Tiempo's octaves unleash in this concerto is amazing (on YT). Pogorelich and Gilels have outstandingly fast and powerful octaves, but decided to play them at a slower tempo.
voolare 3 years ago 2
I have the Argerich recordings with Dutoit and Kondrashin but I just like the '94 recording better as a whole. It's never so recklessly fast that sour notes start flying and the recorded sound is quite nice. The Dutoit recording is great, but Argerich's technique is no less impressive in the '94 Abbado recording and it sounds better, to me at least.
physicsgeek21690 3 years ago
I agree and I think Abbado is the best conductor for the Tchaykowsky concerto n.1. His rendition of it with Pogorelich is my favorite.
voolare 3 years ago