Rachmaninov - The Piano Concerto's Box Set
Jan 28, 2005 at 3:57 AM Post #16 of 181
Quote:

Originally Posted by scottder
I second this, I picked up the Philips 50 Great Recordings Version, which comes with the Rach Suite for 2 Pianos instead of the Tchaikovsky.

Scott



I just ordered this on your recommendation from the BMG catalog for one of my "free" CD's. The music is fantastic. I was looking to expand my Rachmaninoff collection and this was a good choice. Thanks for the great recommendation!
 
Jan 28, 2005 at 4:06 AM Post #17 of 181
Well, since we are now talking about individual issues instead of box sets, I can say that the best Rach 1 and 2 I've heard is the Zimerman CD that came out a year or so ago. Stunningly good, comparable to Janis in 1 and Richter in 2. For the Rach 3, Argerich is good (much better than Horowitz, IMO), but Janis owns this one. He has a CD of the Rach 2 and 3 with Dorati, both are must-hear's. For a very different, but very effective, Rach 3, check out Pletnev. He's such a master and has such a light touch that it comes off as light and Mendelssohnian, not gargantuan and "heroic" like most interps. Not a first choice, but a very worthwhile alternative take.

Haven't heard a Rach 4 that I really, really like, but I have the Michelangeli on order, so maybe that will be the one.
 
Jan 28, 2005 at 12:10 PM Post #18 of 181
Quote:

Originally Posted by Canman
I just ordered this on your recommendation from the BMG catalog for one of my "free" CD's. The music is fantastic. I was looking to expand my Rachmaninoff collection and this was a good choice. Thanks for the great recommendation!


This is one of those CDs that is so easy to recommend, but I am glad you enjoyed it!
 
Jan 28, 2005 at 10:43 PM Post #19 of 181
Listen to Tyson. Everyone should listen to the composer playing his own stuff. Out of respect, if anything.
smily_headphones1.gif


Incidentally, since I'm hearing all sorts of talk about Hough, I'll put in a pitch for his Brahms 2 recording. It is GREAT.

I've loved and respected Horowitz since I was a kid. But exercise caution when buying his recordings of otherwise ultra-romantic works like the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerti. He tends to go overboard with a LOT of things. Love his Liszt B minor though.


Tyson - You haven't heard a recording of Rach 4 that you like because it's a worthless piece. (IMO, of course.) :p
 
Jan 29, 2005 at 8:55 PM Post #20 of 181
For the Rachmaninov 4th I have the Entremont/Philadelphia/Ormandy, a Sony remaster that I enjoy. Paired with the 1st, it offers both of the "weak sisters" in a convenient and sonically attractive packaage.

BW
 
Jan 30, 2005 at 2:12 AM Post #21 of 181
Though I disagreed with Tyson earlier in the thread, I wholeheartedly agree that the best performances I've heard for R1 and R2 are those by Zimerman/Ozawa that came out about a year ago. I was blown away when I first heard them and I am still in awe each time I sit down for a listen.
 
Feb 1, 2005 at 10:38 PM Post #22 of 181
Going through my LPs I just found an unopened recording of the Rachmaninov Piano Concertos, 1 and 2 , Tamás Vásary soloist with the LSO under the direction of Yuri Ahronovitch (Deutsche Gramophon). It's got a 1976 date, and a sticker price of $7.99 from B&N! Does anyone know anything about this recording? I'll be listening tomorrow morning and post my reactions. I can't believe I had this for so long unopened!
 
Feb 2, 2005 at 2:44 AM Post #23 of 181
Vasary

Looks like DG now has all 4 concertos by Vasary on a reduced price 2CD set. From the comments sounds like the tempo may be on the slow side, I don't own any CDs by him. Some timings for various Rach 2:

Wild/Horenstein/Chandos - 30:19
Janis/Dorati/Mercury -30:51
Glemser/Naxos - 33:25
Ashkenazy/Haitink/London - 34:17
Richter/DG - 34:46
Vasary/DG - 36:02

I always knew Wild was one of the fastest tempo R2 recorded, but suprised where Richter times in since I thought it was also a fast R2.

I am seriously looking at Tyson's new favorite Zimerman/DG 1,2 but not thrilled that Ozawa is conducting. Zimerman's R2 would clock in on the slow side at 35:35 so not sure if it would be good for me.
 
Feb 2, 2005 at 7:39 PM Post #25 of 181
Well, I just listened to the Vasary rachmaninoff, and the first thing that struck me was how utterly wonderful virgin vinyl is! For warmth, timbre and pure sensuous feeling, vinyl is still the only way to go. Maybe it has something to do with the analog process which includes all of the audio information, including frequencies that the digital process eliminates. I cannot really judge, although with the way vinyl deteriorates, I know that each time I replay an LP I am going to lose something no matter how good the cartridge and arm is. Vinyl is just too soft to stand up to any consistant use. Hopefully, the cd-digital process is heading more towards the vinyl audio experience. My JVC XRCD's really come close to approximating the sound.

Anyway, back to the Vasary. With the Piano concerto 1, I always have problems judging the performance. The sheer level of expertise and bravura playing that is necessary always leaves me speechless. I feel presumptuous cavilling about nuance when it is so extraordinary to be able to perform the music at all. That said, I found the First Concerto a lot more enjoyable than the 2nd, which for my taste, was a bit too lyrical and soft. The second with the intensely romantic themes that really cry for intensity seemed a little lacking. They were still very enjoyable, but now, listening to the RCA Red Seal Van Cliburn performance (Fritz Reiner conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra), I am completely blown away. It is a much more romantic and satisfying performance to me, especially the second movement with it's soul stirring theme (basis for Eric Carmen's "All by myself," which really hacks it up).

The sound on the RCA is also much better, but the RCA has the concerto on 2 sides whereas the DG has one concerto per side. Both concertos gave my speakers a run for the money with the tremendous dynamic range so typical of Rachmaninov.

I'll be listening to the recording again, and if I find anything else in it, I'll report back.
 
Feb 2, 2005 at 7:42 PM Post #26 of 181
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson
Yes, I bought it a couple of weeks ago and it is bad, bad, bad. How bad is it? It's the worst set I've heard, beating out the almost-as-bad Rudy set.


I just spoke to someone who feels that the Hough is very good. He is the man responsible for getting Alfred Brendel to play Prokofiev, so perhaps he has a basis for his opinion.
 
Feb 2, 2005 at 8:40 PM Post #27 of 181
my pick for the best rach 2 is rubinstein and 3 is janis/munch on liv stereo. Listen to janis' cadenza in no.3 and the delicate pianism in the last mov..
The volodos/levine no. 3 is also exemplary.
 
Feb 3, 2005 at 12:53 PM Post #28 of 181
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson
For the Rach 3, Argerich is good (much better than Horowitz, IMO), but Janis owns this one. He has a CD of the Rach 2 and 3 with Dorati, both are must-hear's. For a very different, but very effective, Rach 3, check out Pletnev. He's such a master and has such a light touch that it comes off as light and Mendelssohnian, not gargantuan and "heroic" like most interps. Not a first choice, but a very worthwhile alternative take.


I can't say anything bad about Janis/Dorati/Mercury R3, a recording that sometimes gets lost in shuffle with all the newcomers but upon revisiting it will almost always rise above the crowded field.

If the Argerich/Phillips R3 did not exist the Janis would likely be my reference R3 also, but I must give Martha the edge over all others even though competition is very fierce. This performance just explodes with tremendous energy and passion yet so fluid seems to improvised on the spot, pity the poor conductor who must somehow keep up with this free spirit who will not be restrained. Even if you feel she goes too far you can only admire an artist so uninhibited and alive with passion.

If you are mainly interested in R3 then do get the Phillips 50 greatest edition like Scott and others have since the remastered sound is very fine. The caveat is the old Phillips had a better coupling in Tchaikovsky 1 which is also very close to reference performance status, an essential CD if ever there was one.
 
Feb 3, 2005 at 2:46 PM Post #29 of 181
Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkAngel
If you are mainly interested in R3 then do get the Phillips 50 greatest edition like Scott and others have since the remastered sound is very fine. The caveat is the old Phillips had a better coupling in Tchaikovsky 1 which is also very close to reference performance status, an essential CD if ever there was one.


I honestly didn't notice the different pairing until I got home with it, I mainly picked it because it was a few dollars cheaper (at B&N where I bought it) than the old Phillips release, I assumed (bad thing to do) that they were the same. I am still happy I bought it of course, the R3 is just incredible. Argerich just takes it and puts lots of passion into it. Too anyone who still thinks all classical is "boring" or "relaxing" (am I the only one who despises those 'Most Relaxing Classical' CDs?)...needs to hear this!
 
Feb 3, 2005 at 4:23 PM Post #30 of 181
Quote:

Originally Posted by scottder
Argerich just takes it and puts lots of passion into it. Too anyone who still thinks all classical is "boring" or "relaxing" (am I the only one who despises those 'Most Relaxing Classical' CDs?)...needs to hear this!


LOL ... Rachmaninoff is the Eric Clapton (or Rolling Stones) of classics !

Sorry can't resist to post this CD cover:

clasrock.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top