No, I am nowhere near that ability yet.

What is the big fuss about the ossia and regular version of the cadenza? I'm an avid listener of the rach concertos, but this was something I was never aware of until reading youtube comments..

Is it like the silly thing about Liszt's HR2 and the ending?

Play whichever version you like better.

I think there wouldn't be the fuss, if Rachmaninov himself didn't record it with the "regular" (2nd) cadenza. Most people seem to think that the Ossia (1st) is better because it's more loud and I'd guess more technically demanding. But as OSK said, you can play whichever one you like more.

Ossia (1st)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NyC1nVKfq4

"Regular" (2nd)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiC_LsG-jq0

(Personally, I think the recording by Argerich is a marvelous, and so gets my vote for Cadenza.)

did you not empty your clipboard? I spy a Rudolph recording..

I think the "big fuss" is basically big hype. It used to be that very few pianists played the ossia, and some critics would fall all over themselves in wonder if someone did, as if it were the pianistic equivalent of an Evel Knievel stunt. So, like the concerto itself, it got a reputation which wasn't really well-grounded in reality.

This has been discussed a fair amount. As OSK says, play whichever you prefer.

I have said this before, but it is worth the repeat: the BIG cadenza is obviously more impressive by itself, but looking at the first movement as a whole, the more modest cadenza simply works better in CONTEXT. Rachmaninov used it in his recording, but if he had felt the need to play the larger one, he would certainly have been accommodated.

To me, the same thing with the enormous 3rd option in the Beethoven 1st concerto. Quite impressive (even if Beethoven never got around to editing it), but the 2nd option makes the most musical sense, again in CONTEXT.

Prokofiev's massive assault in his 2nd concerto thankfully has no alternative (other than making a cut as Jorge Bolet did in his first recording), but I find it most interesting that Prokofiev did away with any cadenza in his 3rd concerto, and it is much tighter for that.

Reger, too, felt that the first movement of his concerto had no formal availability for a cadenza, and if you know the piece, it's hard to imagine where he could have inserted one. But that didn't stop the pianist who gave the premiere from asking why there wasn't a cadenza.

OTH, the 4th movement of the Busoni concerto inexorably proceeds to the cadenza as a climax. That was inevitable, it had to happen.

I feel that the choice of cadenza dictates to a large extent your whole approach to the first movement, if not the whole work. By choosing the 'ossia' version (and let's not forget it was Rach's original thoughts, rather than the 2nd which he recorded with), it really becomes the climax of the movement: it has the longest build-up and the most massive climax in the movement, and yet it's for solo piano. The quicksilver version on the other hand is over in a flash, and its figuration (until it joins up with the latter part of the original, which sounds in this context almost tacked-on) is more in keeping with the later Rach/Pag than Rach 3 generally.

Pianists who play the big cadenza (those who can do justice to it, that is) view the concerto in a more heavyweight and 'big' manner than those who play the short one - just compare Cliburn and Argerich, or the early Ashkenazy and the later one (Ashkenazy, like Pletnev and a few other pianists, started their careers playing the short cadenza before switching to the biggie).

So where would you place the Horowitz recordings? Heavy weight or
quicksilver?

Horowitz, as always, defies convention....

I'd say that he goes for the quicksilver but with his customary explosive climaxes when he still had the technique to do exactly what he wants (i.e. his earlier recordings). Despite his power (which he actually deploys sparingly), I don't think the sustained assault on the piano of huge chords in rapid succession suited his playing style. Unfortunately, by the time of his recording with Ormandy, compromises meant that the performance as a whole had become somewhat disjointed. BTW, Rachmaninov said that Horowitz and Gieseking are the best interpreters of his 3rd concerto. One plays the short cadenza, the other the big one.....

My vote for the best of the 'massive' performances are Gavrilov (his first Melodiya recording, unfortunately never transferred to CD) and Sokolov (live performances from the 1990s, mostly with BBC orchestras, unfortunately never put on CD....). None of the quicksilver recordings really appeal to me.....not even (gasp! ) the composer's own.

While it's also my choice of cadenza, Horowitz (mistakes and all) let's it run and breathe as only it could in his hands (I'm thinking of the Ormandy recording...1978?) I love Argerich's 3rd, but too often she rushes through things (as always).

Oh indeed! And thanks for your comments.

But in spite of Gieseking's cadenza preference, isn't his recording more in the 'quicksilver' category?

I assume Rachmaninov heard Gieseking play it live? I would trust Rachmaninov's judgement in which interpreters he preferred, but of course the piece was a lot newer then, and he obviously wouldn't have heard the many subsequent performances. (But dear, not Horowitz's recording with Ormandy.)

Perhaps I need to give the Gieseking recording another try. I cannot say I cared much for it, but with the exception of Debussy -and those recordings are supreme- I haven't responded to his interpretations of other composers, at least the recordings I have heard.

I understand that the shorter cadenza was a second thought, and we know that Rachmaninov's second thoughts were not always happy (cf the 2nd sonata), but as you know, there is no critical consensus regarding the cadenzas. A lot of critics and listeners continue to prefer the shorter cadenza, as I do in context, even if I think the larger one extremely impressive in itself.

It is kind of unfair to use the Horowitz/Ormandy for a point of comparison. Rather, compare the Horowitz/Mehta DVD recording. It is sometimes available via Ebay from China. It is magical in so many ways. Musically it is rather incomparable. No one comes close in the fabulous ability to virtually suspend time.

Why?

Gieseking's two live recordings have quite a number of wrong notes - the one with Mengelberg sound like he's improvising on Rach's big cadenza, but the other one is much better. He is generally faster than many pianists today (except in the opening), but his is still a 'big' performance to my ears.

Stores, in the Ormandy recording neither artist is at his best. Horowitz during this period made some very bombastic, but not so musical recordings. The B minor sonata and the Rach. 3, and Rach. Sonata come to mind. The pairing with Mehta was done subsequent to the Ormandy, but with the NY Phil, and is peerless in many ways. I think that Mehta is a much more sympathetic collaborator and Horowitz is more relaxed and creative. It's all the more fabulous because it's a DVD. It's a DG recording, so the sonics are fabulous as well.

Actually, although the Horowitz/Mehta Rachmaninoff Third was released on video on DG for contractual reasons, it's not a DG recording. The sound comes from NBC's tape, which was supervised by Horowitz's RCA producer.

The Mehta performance is definitely on a higher level than the Golden Jubilee recording with Ormandy. But for me the best Rachmaninoff Third from that season was Horowitz's Ann Arbor performance with the Philadelphia Orchestra under Ormandy - it almost sounds like the Horowitz of 1951.

Yeah and I just missed that performance! It would have been my chance to hear him live and I'll kick myself in the a$$ to my grave for not being able to be there.

I know about his recordings during this period and that they weren't really up to par for him, but so much of what he does with that concerto is simply magical and unlike anything any other pianist does with it. Rach 3 belonged to him...and still does.

I didn't know there was a DVD version subsequent to the Ormandy - must seek it out.

Check out the Denis Matsuev reading. I love it!

Yes, I've recently bought his CD, and really like the way he takes no prisoners, and pulls out all the stops.....

Of course, you could always do what Andre Watts did, and combine them! ;-)