Talk:Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cadenza & cuts practice

I've heard from this discussion page and other sources about the 2-measure cuts that Rachmaninoff & others make, as well as opting for the 2nd cadenza rather than ossia. I'd like to add more about the cuts & the second cadenza - anyone objects? Perhaps, we could have a table listing those famous performances, with notes on what choices the performers made with regards to tempo, cadenzas, cuts, etc. Red Plum 20:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I added information about the cuts, but did not go into great detail. Although the 2-measure cut at the end of the cadenza is still common (Vladimir Horowitz called the section in questions "absolutely impossible" musically) the concerto is played relatively complete these days.THD3 (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Article merge

Yep, I was showing someone the wikipedia, he edited that page, and I ended up merging the stuff from that page to this one. He's looked over it and it's all there now. Flamingantichimp 05:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This was added by someione as a new article named "Piano Concerto No. 3", perhaps in can be merged into the article here? Written in the peaceful setting of his family's country estate, Ivanovka, the Third Concerto in D Minor, opus 30, was completed on the 23rd of September in 1909. It is widely considered as the hardest concerto ever written. Mr. Rachmaninoff wrote this piece in order to showcase his own talents not only as a composer, but as a pianist. Evegeny Kissin once said that Rachmaninoff's talents were not "virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity"; instead, they were an incredible combination of passion and musicality. It is feared by all pianists. Joseph Hoffman, the man to whom the work is dedicated never attempted to play it, saying that it wasn't for him. The piece was publicly performed for the first time by him on November 28, 1909 with the New York Symphony Society under Maestro Walter Damrosch. However, due to time constraints, he could not practice the piece while in Russia. Instead, he took a silent keyboard with him on the ship to the US and started, and finished, working on it. Kosebamse 03:47, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just want to express my opinion about Vladimir Feltsman being on the list as 'among the popular recordings'. I have personally never heard of his name, let alone hearing the recording, and I own somewhere around 40 recordings of Rachmaninov 3rd. Is it really a great recording? 66.131.96.92 07:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Little lists like these tend to get cluttered up with everybody's personal idea of 'popular'. The Feltsman only has two reviews on Amazon, though they're both 5-star reviews. (Apparently Feltsman takes the cuts and does the light cadenza.) - mako 08:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

best recordings

Although not mentioned in the article, of the many versions I've heard over the past years, I would like to recommend the very best version, which in my opinion is the performance by Jorge Bolet recorded with Haitink conducting the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra. Brilliant technique, unique musical interpretation and astonishing orchestration ... just to make anyone interested aware of this ...

Reply to: == best recordings ==

I added mention of what seems to be the most highly regarded recording of the Rach 3rd in recent years, that of Leif Ove Andsnes with the Oslo P.O. under Pavlo Berglund. I did a pretty exhaustive search for the best recording of this work, listening to about 30 performances, some of my favorites of which were those of Byron Janis, MikHail Pletnev, and Martha Argerich. I've only heard streaming snippets of Bolet's recording, not really enough to form much of a judgment, but I imagine it is quite good, especially considering how masterful Haitink was in his recording of the Rach 2nd with Ashkenazy.

I prefer the Andsnes version most of all for its elegance and cohesiveness. The tone of his piano is exceedingly beautiful, and the reverberance of the hall strikes a great balance bewteen fullness and clarity.

I feel the recordings section of this article is veering out of control. There are so many recordings listed, some of which are not noteworthy, and one of which David Helfgott is noteworthy for all the wrong reasons. Maybe this needs to be trimmed?THD3 12:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with THD3. In addition to the excessive number of recordings, having Horowitz, Argerich, Gilels and Rachmaninoff himself mentioned alongside Gerstein, Bennett and Helfgott really doesn't seem to make much musical sense (no offence intended). I think the recordings section should be trimmed to accommodate only famous/critically acclaimed registers of Rach 3, and maybe also recordings by indisputably great pianists. MUSIKVEREIN 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of users have been adding Henry Hoey's name to a list of recordings of this piece. I'm pretty well connected but I've never heard of him, nor have I been able to find a reference to it. Can anybody shed light on this guy, or is it just vandalism?THD3 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is probably vandalism. I've never heard of Henry Hoey either, let alone of a Rach 3 recording by him. I also wonder if there is sock puppetry here, since it is unlikely that several users should have decided to make an edit about the obscure Hoey (if he exists at all) on the same day. MUSIKVEREIN 16:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This section continues to grow. The latest addition, André Watts, is a worthy one - his version with Ozawa is really good - but this is scarcely the point: the problem here is that it has turned into an "all Rach 3 recordings" section, rather than a "best recordings" one. There are well over 100 commercial recordings of this concerto out there, many of which could arguably be also included (e.g., those by Gavrilov, Donohoe, Thibaudet, Anievas, Vásáry, Gutierrez, and many others). Therefore, I think it is about time we reorganize this section to make it concise and sensible. MUSIKVEREIN 13:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The section is becoming a catch-all.THD3 13:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Its getting bigger. I don't think this section is really necessary. Is there any piano virtuoso who hasn't recorded this piece? 134 recordings of it are availabe at arkivmusic.com (and that doesn't count recordings that are out of print). I really don't think we can have "best recording" sections on wikipedia without these sections bloating up into catch-all sections. Collectors can spend countless hours discussing the relative merits of different recordings without coming to a consensus. We should stick to the facts here. DavidRF (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the section to list pianists who have NOT recorded the concerto.  ;) Seriously, I do think certain recordings have to be listed, such as the world premiere recording and the composer's own, but the mentions should be neutral in tone.THD3 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no objections to the suggestions above. I will trim the list tomorrow to list only historically important recordings as noted above.THD3 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

THD3 do you truly think that the last significant recording of this was done in 1991? Hey, why don't you get with the 21st Century, eh? If the Horowitz recording would have been done only a few months ago, would you still think it is insignificant? Historicity does not necessarily guarantee worth. In any case, I will be back. You stupid fool, every single morning for as long as it takes. This is one battle you are not going to win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward C Piercy (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You should refrain from personal attacks. That's a quick way to get yourself banned.MisterCSharp (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

THD3 I thank you for your the view. And based upon the reviews of the recent Lisitsa albums I don't think you will ever regret it. I have been listening to her for the past 3-1/2 years and I have to say that since I started listening to music in 1970 that she is the greatest pianist known to me. So thank you for acknowedging her work at the very least. And if you haven't listened to her Rach 2 and Rach 3, please do. You will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward C Piercy (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are the fool here, Piercy. And an ignorant one too, because this is not a matter of who wins or who loses, but of respecting Wikipedia standards, which is something you obviously know nothing about. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

allusions to 2nd concerto

The second movement has some instances of musical thought almost exactly like Rachmaninoff's 2nd concerto, 3rd movement. It's the very Russian melodic line that leads to the finale.

The Dum-da-da-DUM ending? Yes, he also used it in the Second Symphony.THD3 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff NEVER played it after hearing Horowitz?

Are we including the recording he made in 1939? Because he certainly played it on the recording.THD3 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that he didn't play it again. This is again a gossip to fascinate people by using the way of extreme exaggeration--Nightspirit 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon has reinserted this information in the article, citing the booklet of Horowitz's Last Recording CD as reference. In the absence of any contradicting evidence, I think we'll have to go along with it. MUSIKVEREIN 18:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As to whether Rachmaninoff never played it in public again, I do not know. However, he definitely recorded the work in 1939, about a decade after hearing Horowitz play the piece. It's also possible Perahia was simply mistaken when he wrote the liner notes. Perhaps the information should be clarified.THD3 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. MUSIKVEREIN 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done some researching. I went back to several books (by Sachs, Elder, Schonberg, Lebrecht and Dubal) as well as to articles on Horowitz/Rachmaninoff/Rach 3 in specialised publications (by critics James Methuen-Campbell, Bryce Morrison, John Kersey, David Fanning, Jed Distler and Piero Rattalino). In none of these sources could I find anything to substantiate the never-played-it-again claim. Still looking, though. MUSIKVEREIN 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NOT true—see the main Rach article for info on that. The composer played it 85 times during his career, much opf that likely after hearing Horowitz in 1927 or 28. Jonyungk (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here we go again. There seems to be a confusion regarding performances. The 1941 Horowitz performance was NOT the one that left Rachmaninoff astonished. It was when Horowitz played the work in Steinway's basement with the composer accompanying on a second piano, back in 1928, which led Rachmaninoff to make his "He swallowed it whole" remark. In August of 1942, Horowitz performed the work at the Hollywood Bowl, and Rachmaninoff, in attendance, mounted the stage to announce "This was the way I have always dreamed my concerto should be played, but I never expected to hear it that way on Earth."THD3 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was at a performance of this piece with Leif Ove Andsnes and the Cleveland Orchestra recently. In their history of local performances of the piece, they report that Rachmaninoff played the Third Concerto in 1932! I am removing all reference to Rachmaninoff never having played it after hearing Horowitz. It's grown to legend over the years, but it's just plain wrong.THD3 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Most Difficult Concerto

Is there really ANY virtuoso who says this? I don't believe such a truth really exists. It is a thing created by the Hollywood lovers after the film "Shine" to give what they listened but couldn't understand in the film a pop name.

Perhaps not. I remember hearing this claim many years before "Shine" was made. Can you name any other concerto in the standard repertoire that is more challenging? -- JackofOz 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, for example again in Wikipedia in the article "Sergei Rachmaninoff" it says " The Third is widely considered ONE of THE most difficult of all piano concertos, and thus is a favorite among virtuoso pianists, although Rachmaninoff felt that the Third "fell more easily under the fingers" than the famous Second". Secondly, you say you "remember hearing this claim", but in order this claim to be true, it should be said by some of the virtuosos who have played ALL the piano concertos in the "standard" repertoire. As you say you remember hearing this claim, then I see you don't play the piano, at least professionally. And you don't show references either. Then how can this claim's being in Wikipedia be appropriate?

I was merely arguing against your statement that the reputation of the concerto (sometimes stated as "the most difficult", but always at least "one of the most difficult") started with "Shine". It is a matter of record that this reputation long preceded "Shine". It probably started almost a century ago when its dedicatee Jozef Hofmann refused to play it. I've highlighted the word "reputation", because that's what we're talking about, not whether it is actually the most difficult (something that cannot be measured in any meaningful way), In any case, the article now says it is "one of the most difficult", which I have no problem with. Do you dispute this statement? I posed a counter-question, to which you haven't responded. And what has my, or anyone's, personal piano playing ability got to do with this issue? -- JackofOz 06:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jack, I've updated the sentence in question to read "one of the most difficult" to make it a little less POV. A number of pianists have told me that they consider the Brahms Second Concerto more taxing (probably because it's poorly written for piano, IMHO).THD3 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd already noticed the change. We'll have to agree to disagree about the Brahms. It's far better written for the piano than the Dvorak concerto, which often seems to require 2 right hands. -- JackofOz 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a case could be made for considering Busoni's Piano Concerto Op. 39 the most difficult of them all. At least two great pianists who have played the Rach 3, the Brahms Second and the Busoni (and recorded the latter two), John Ogdon and Marc-André Hamelin, have stated that the Busoni work is the more taxing one, not least on account of its sheer length (over an hour). Nelson Freire, on the other hand, is on record in an interview given last year saying that he regards the Brahms Second as the most difficult piano concerto of all, thereby agreeing with the pianists mentioned by THD3. So, summing everything up, these three works are probably the most demanding pieces for piano and orchestra. MUSIKVEREIN, 9:45, 20 August, 2007

I'll give you some references! I'm playing this epic for the first time on the weekend. It took me 6 months just to finger the damn thing. I also took the trouble to count how many notes need to be memorised - 29,216 with cadenza I'm playing (ossia). That made me curious to see how many notes are in Rach 2, which haven't added up yet...but it's a lot less. I might play Brahms 2 next year, and I don't think that will be anywhere near as much trouble. It's got some tricky bits, but unlike Rach 3 you do get a rest during the orchestra tuttis. Apart from the start/end of the 2nd movement, Rach 3 is a physical onslaught. Oscarsnr (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Shine

Should there be a reference to "Shine" in the article?

It was here once, but has been removed. There's some debate about how pop-culture references should be handled by wikipedia. These articles should focus on the pieces themselves and there is fear that overly long pop-culture sections might take over the article. That said, "Shine" is not a case where the music is playing in the background during one scene, the work is mentioned by name and features prominently in the plot. Plus, Geoffrey Rush won an Oscar for his performance. I wouldn't mind a link to Shine somewhere, but I wouldn't want it to open the floodgates for other popculture links. DavidRF 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be OK. Given that the article on Rachmaninoff's Paganini Rhapsody mentions Somewhere in Time and other films, there is ample precedent.THD3 10:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. StAnselm (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Source for the recording

Who played the cadenza in this article? (No offense, but it's not very good :P) ♥ Fredil 00:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Rach 3"

I've re-inserted the "Rach 3" term. I would like to have some comments on this, but as you can see I am in favor of keeping this well-established nickname. – Pladask (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the nickname. BUT, I've heard it used quite a bit and it has been used in print by numerous periodicals. Just like FDR for Franklin Roosevelt, it has become an accepted nickname and should stay.THD3 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my memory, I'd never heard it till Sir John Gielgud uttered the expression in the movie Shine (1996), in which the 3rd concerto played a prominent role. (The 1st, 2nd and 4th Concertos aren't known as the Rachs 1, 2 and 4.) Insiders may have called it "the Rach 3" long before 1996, but being an outsider, I wouldn't know. But whenever it started, it seems to have stuck, and these things have to start somewhere. It doesn't have the same degree of "formal" acceptance as the epithet "Elvira Madigan" for Mozart's Concerto No. 21 in C, which also came from a 1967 movie. By that, I mean we often see recordings or performances of the Mozart actually marketed as "Mozart: Piano Concerto No. 21 in C - Elvira Madigan", but we don't see the Rachmaninoff 3rd actually marketed as "Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No. 3 - Rach 3". However, it is informally referred to as such by radio broadcasters etc. and it gets into print, as THD3 said. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Horowitz/Ormandy 1978 recording

I've just read a comment on the 1978 recording, which described it as "unfortunate" and "a travesty". What was so bad about it? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== I don't know either, Jack. I'm very fond of that recording, and I know that THD3 also likes it. But it is a fact that many critics and even pianists love to bash this recording. Even Harold Schonberg, a Horowitz admirer, bad mouthed it. It has become a kind of truism that the Horowitz of the late 70's was a travesty of his earlier self, and most of his recordings of that period are treated harshly by a good portion of the musical establishment. Another case in point is his second version of the Liszt B minor sonata, also from the same period: critics generally refer to it as "torturous", "grandiloquent" and similar disparaging adjectives, but I have always derived much pleasure from it. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a TV documentary on Franz Mohr, the concert piano tuner of Steinway New York, who often worked for Horowitz. He stated that Horowitz had not played with orchestra for many years then and felt that he might not be heard against the orchestra (a common pianists' misconception but usually only for novices). Hence he urged Mohr to make the piano sound harder and harder (felt lacquer). There were reviews afterwards stating "piano out of tune". Maybe it's that piano sound that doesn't appeal to some people or that makes some Horowitz characteristics less bearable. Also, Horowitz was 74 at the time and I personally think the technical challenges of that concerto are not for pianists of that age. --K. Nagel (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As a pianist's final public thoughts on a Concerto he did more than anyone else to champion, the recording has some importance. I have referred to the Golden Jubilee performance (and even more, the televised performance with Mehta) as "a valedictory," but it's Horowitz's valedictory, not Rachmaninoff's. For all the wrong notes, and Horowitz's very personal interpretation, it has a lot to say that's worth hearing. However, I don't feel that forms the basis for inclusion on this page, which should - in my opinion - only list recordings that stand on their own historical merit:

• The world premier recording (which is Horowitz's from 1930);
• The composer's own recording;
• A few selected because they have received universal - or near-universal - acclaim.

The 1978 Golden Jubilee recording, much as I love it, does not fit into those categories.THD3 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Include a List of Recordings at All?

The current solution to the "too many recordings listed" solution seems to be to arbitrary decide that some recordings are "historically important" and should be included, while others should be left out. It doesn't feel like it should be this article's place to do such a thing. Maybe it would be better to just not mention any specific recordings? Kevinatilusa (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many recordings. None of my favorites are listed. That said, I don't think ANY should be listed. These lists are often arbitrary at best and, as in the present list, obviously not put together with particular dicrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.113.201 (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the only necessary recording in a historical article like this would be ones by the composer himself? 115.189.88.149 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Recordings Format

Since all the listed recordings have been issued on CD, why include a format. For completion, should we note that Rachmaninoff's and Horowitz recordings were originally issued on 78rpm discs?THD3 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. A "format" column does seem a little irrelevant. As to the originally-issued 78rpm discs, I think they merit mentioning for historical reasons. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think "format" is pretty much irrelevant. More important is whether it was Live or Studio and maybe if it were Mono or Stereo. Angry bee (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)