Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Which Rach 3 Cadenza do you prefer?

Well I have played both of em and I think that your choice could also be influenced by the piano you're playing. If you have a piano with the most amazing bass you've ever heard, I think it would be fun to play the ossia. One of my teachers instilled that thought process in me, and I thought it quite logical. However, I do like Mr. Biegels view about the shorter being more pianistic; like Max said, you're not trying to substitute for the orchestra.

My favorite recording is Horowitz '51. No doubts about that for me. If you want to hear how the cadenza is supposed to sound, listen to this puppy. Listening to him play the scherzando section makes me think of watching a tree grow(in fast forward); I just can barely believe it when I hear it.

In my personal opinion, I prefer the shorter cadenza. I just think that it fits the piece better, but it also depends on the way the pianist plays the rest of the piece, especially the line before the cadenza. I prfer it played slowely like Argerich, it helps to build up to the cadenza. If it is played faster like Wild then I think it ruins the effect of the start of the cadenza. But all in all, I prefer the shorter one.

Okay to hop back in here? Passions have cooled off a bit I trust.

The last concerto I learned before switching to church music and organ at university was the Saint-Saëns C minor (no cakewalk to be sure), so the inevitable issue of tackling Rachmaninov 3 never came up and is unlikely to do so at this point.

Still, I have read through the piece many times playing both cadenzas. The larger cadenza is indeed impressive, but I simply feel the shorter one works better in the musical context. Yet ultimately -as inferred elsewhere in this thread- it really depends on one's overall concept of the piece.

Interestingly, the first time I heard Argerich's recording (I must have been 12 or 13 with no prior knowledge of her cadenza choice), I simply knew she would opt for the shorter one. It makes perfect sense in her conception of the piece. Her recording (IMHO) is one of the finest modern interpretations, but of course I wouldn't be biased, would I?

I know people who like to show off prefer the longer cadenza because it's considered to be more difficult technically. But musically I don't like it. It just sounds overindulgent. It almost seems to get in the way of the piece, if that makes any sense.

On the other hand, when I hear the shorter cadenza it seems to flow so much better.

I prefer the shorter one as a listener but I prefer to play the longer one.

I'm definitely for the long cadenza, but Kocsis has done a very nice job in his recording with the short one... The longer one has never satisfied me [completely] in any pianist's performance... Every one has a little bit, that's very nice, and yet every one has another bit (rather larger one), that's not as good as I'd like it to be. In other words, if you out together the right performers' right bits, you'll get the perfect long cadenza. This would make the concerto so much more beautiful...

In reading everyone's opinions, they are all valid and extremely interesting. However, the most important thing in this piece is how one tenderly and simply phrases the first two pages--there's a specific color and hue to the opening that sets the tone for the whole piece. This is what Adele Marcus was great at (yes, she was demanding--but she really knew her stuff and had her name attached to every student--she was a genius of sound and color--even Horowitz said to her, 'Why don't you perform more--how do you get that sound??' The cd being made at the moment of her old recordings found in her apartment after she passed should be announced in the spring.) I remember lisetsning to Alicia De Larrocha's recording of the Rach 3--yes, she played it--it was so elegant. The cadenza was not sped through, but rather weaved with color and a great sense of line. The Rachmaninoff recording as well--the Byron Janis recording--they're beautiful. Yes, one can pace that longer cadenza and downplay the big chords--somehow ehen you play that first big chordal section a bit softer, it sounds loud enough by simply bringing out the main theme chords more than the others--which saves room for the passionate climax as in the shorter cadenza. Funny thing--when I play the first movement especially, when it ends, it feels as though I have played an elaborate expansion of Mozart and Chopin--just with alot more embroidery. On my mind is still bringing out the melodic content with everything else filigreed around it--otherwise, it's too many notes. I never want my listener to think, 'Gee, great octaves, thirds, fingers, etc.' Even Rachmaninoff's own recording is deeply musical and the technical aspect is not paramount.

I'm playing it in Charleston next season, and what I am always concerned about is that the piano should not be too bright--but rich and milky in sound--yet have enough sonority to cut through the orchestra.

Very well, JBiegel.
I apologize. My temper sometimes does terrible things to me. (very rarely)

We're just human--hope to hear you play the Rach 3 sometime! Such a magnificent concerto by an amazing composer.