Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Best interpreter for Rachmaninoff/Rachmaninov?

As the one for Johannes is eight years old, I thought I'd start one for PW's favorite composer (other than Fryderyk, of course). You will note that, being an inclusive sort of guy, I include both spellings of his name, depending on which side of the pond you reside.

Of all the pianists who've recorded his 'entire' piano oeuvre, I'd say Ashkenazy is the one. Especially for the concertos. But he's not actually played either the actual 1931 or 1913 version of you-know-what - only his own, mostly 1913 with stuff from 1931.

So, what about those who played/recorded a lot of Rach, but not all - who, IYO, is the 'best'?

Rachmaninoff himself, obviously.

Horowitz. He also played his own version of you-know-what . Even Rachmaninoff praised Horowitz for his performance of Concert no. 3 and encouraged him to change some spots in the Sonata.

Yeah, that's who I always go to first for Rachmaninoff.

Moiseiwitsch.





Rachmaninoff considered that Moiseiwitsch played his works better than he did himself. Judge for yourself!

For the 2nd concerto my favorite is Richter, also for the 6 Preludes that was released along with the concerto recording.

I'm an "off" kind of gal. My teacher, being Russian, thinks it's an "ov" thing and is certain the "ov" spelling must be more common in the U.S. She is wrong; "off" is most common here.

I now skirt the whole issue by calling him Pax-Man-Hob.

Problem solved.

I believe the story is that Rach 'Americanized' his name on arrival in you-know-where, and henceforth, and forevermore, spelled his name with "off".

So, if we want to be truthful to him, himself, we should use "off'.

But.....it became a bit awkward with other Soviet artistes. I have an ancient cheap score of Prokofiev's Visions fugitives, where his name is spelled Prokofieff. And even my fairly recent volume of his Sonatas Nos. 6-9 (Boosey & Hawkes) spelled it "ff". But it seems so odd. How about Mikhail Pletneff, Denis Matsueff, Lyapunoff, Liadoff....Mstislaff Rostropovich.....?

So, in Europe, we still generally prefer "ov". Whether Rach himself approves or not, from his perch up high .

I don't know whether it's because Ashkenazy's version of his concertos (with Previn) was the only version I knew for many years, but when I first heard Rach playing them, I was disappointed - he seems so matter-of-fact, unlike in his renditions of the solo piano repertoire, which are full of naughty touches and flights of fancy.

Especially of Chopin and Schumann, but also of his own music.

He said a lot of modest things like that.

My favorite comment from him about his pianism was in Chasin's book, where he said something like: Hofmann says I am the greatest pianist in the world, and I say he is, but Hofmann says he is the greatest automobile mechanic among pianists, and I know I am!

Good nomination, even if the question itself is questionable.

There is no "best" when the music has been played by more than a few fine performers, and that is especially true when it comes to composers as over-exposed as R.

Also, even though the results are usually just as mindless, when "favorite" replaces "best" in the subject line of this sort of thread, at least there is no bogus assertion that some absolute in the realm of quality has been found.

There isn't anything obvious about it, IMO. Composers, for various reasons, may not be the ideal interpreters of their own music, even when they are very good performers of the music of others.

In R's case, one argument that could be made is that his insecurities about his compositional abilities infected his playing of his own music, making it excessively self-conscious and restrained.

Hi all,

I am in the camp that believes that Rachmaninov himself should be the first to be mentioned, without question, though I understand why some people aren't fond of his portrayals of his own work. To me, his renditions seem to perfectly convey the severe contradictions in his character. Outwardly, a "six and a half foot scowl," while inwardly a gushing sentimentalist. Ergo, his interpretations are solid and rather stoic while the writing is overflowing with emotion.

I concur with the mentions of Richter, whose considerable strengths seem particularly suited to this repertoire.

Santiago Rodriguez has made some very fine recordings of the sonatas, preludes, and various other pieces. His approach is muscular, rhythmic and direct. Sadly, it seems he has abandoned his plans to record the complete works.

I have a special fondness for Sofronitsky's take on Rachmaninov although I'd concede that his approach probably isn't the most representative of what can be considered "Rachmaninov-esque."

My personal favourite for the 1st and 2nd concertos: Krystian Zimerman.
Too bad he didn't record the other works. I'm particularly interested to hear how he would approach the 3rd.

Consider that R's Mozart was just plain awful, too much him and almost no Mozart, none of the appropriate style or articulation. Same with most of his other recording except his own, where he plays his own pieces, after everything is said and done, quite simply and affectingly.

But it's not the only way to play his music.

R was arguably the best and greatest pianist of that era. Horowitz said so, and I believe he was right. However, it is highly arguable what kind interpreter he was of other people's works. I would not have paid to hear him play Schumann, for instance.

I am generally impressed by most every "reference" recording of his works. I know that makes me "easy", but I have to argue that at the same time it also makes me expensive. Take that for what it's worth.

Why don't we argue the point from the other side of the table, for a minute? E. G., who do you "hate" playing R's works?

I think that is a much easier and more interesting question. After all, just because a composer wrote a piece doesn't make them the best interpreter of it, as wr said. Many composers have turned out to not be the best champions of their own works.

I believe that he will play the 3rd one day - in an interview a few years ago, he described it in monumental terms, a gigantic work requiring years of study. It should be worth the wait when he finally deems himself ready to play it - with the big cadenza, of course .

I'm not sure how one really judges interpretations of Rachmaninoff. I feel like the huge gulf between the way Rachmaninoff's music looks on the page, and the way he actually played it, makes it almost impossible to judge any interpreter by the measure of obedience to the page. And yet it hardly seems fair to praise someone for aping his style, however well they do it.

Richter, Moiseiwitsch, Horowitz, and Merzhanov are some of the names that spring to mind, but I gladly listen to them playing almost anything because they are such originals.

Yes, that would be worth the wait.

Incidentally, when driving home this evening, our local station played the 3rd with Matsuev/Gergiev. I missed the first movement, but from what I heard in the other movements, this was powerhouse Rachmaninov playing, channeling memories of Horowitz and Wild.

But I was rather surprised that the once standard cut in the 3rd movement (14 measures at the meno mosso) was taken. I honestly thought we were past that, and I do have to wonder was it the conductor or pianist's idea? My hunch is the former, knowing a bit about Gergiev. And as many people know, Horowitz and Wild also took that cut.

Edit: IIRC, Horowitz played it complete with Ormandy, but I don't have that CD -I never liked that performance- and am too lazy to work through yt videos.

That cut is still occasionally done in performances today - usually by Russian performers. (As is the cut in the slow movement of Tchaikovsky's 2nd). I agree that Matsuev's Rach 3 is in the full-blooded Russian tradition (it's my favorite of recent recordings) - as is his Rach 2 which he played in the BBC Proms last year.

Another cut commonly made is in the climax of the first movement cadenza (after the two alternatives have converged) - Horowitz with Ormandy (and Mehta, in the DVD) still cut it.