Rach 3 cadenza investigation
“Rachmaninov wrote two versions of this cadenza: his original thought was the bold, chordal version; the alternative is lighter, filigreed, scherzo-like.”
Disclaimer: Ossia of the first half of the cadenza is chordal, and half way into the cadenza, only the chordal version exists.
I should say that while a concerto is to showcase the solo instrument and its performer, the orchestra can sometimes make or break the overall interpretation of a piece. I have listened to Argerich’s, Horowitz’s, and Ashkenazy’s Rach 3 first movement and much to my surprise, I didn’t like Horowitz’s RCA recording with Reiner as much.
First of all, Argerich’s Rach 3 is fast. She played the non-ossia part. Even so, her notes just seemed to fly by, and I don’t know how that is doing justice to a colorful music literature. Rach 3 is not all about fast. There are measures that require accelerando, and some ritardo. But the overall tempo is calm. The melody doesn’t sound “right” with a fast tempo. I have to say that I’m much disappointed with the recording dubbed, “the ultimate Rach3.” Argerich didn’t put effort in understanding Rach 3.
Horowitz did a good job, but his orchestra accompaniment failed to due its part. Through out the first movement, I heard the prominence of the piano and had a hard time hearing the orchestra, especially when the orchestral melody is supposed to overcome the piano background. Horowitz’s interpretation is better than Argerich, but I can’t say that it is the best version. I think perhaps the name, Horowitz, added some factor into judging the piece and it seems unfair to compare a future pianist’s interpretation to that of Horowitz’s. However, I enjoyed most of the first movement. I focused on the cadenza, and like Argerich, Horowitz chose the less chordal version, which is fine. Yet, he played the second half of the cadenza’s chords way too fast. The speed took away the powerful tone that the chords demand. True, he crescendoed as he neared the end of the cadenza to bring to the climax, and then descrendoed into piano. But compared it to Ashkenazy’s cadenza (same sections), I found boldness and power in Ashkenazy’s interpretation, the similar boldness and power that one expects to hear in a Rachmaninov.
Ashkenazy had a good orchestra to perform with, and that helped. I enjoyed his Rach 3 the most. What wowed me over is the fact that he played the cadenza so well and so vigor. Those chords are not easy to play correctly and it takes endurance because the hands are constantly playing octaves. His choice of the “ossia” cadenza made more sense to the continuity of the melody. It just didn’t make sense to me when I heard the cadenza’s beginning in Horowitz/Argerich recordings. I would like to hear the chords a little bit faster, just a little bit faster, in Ashkenazy.
Even Rach himself enjoyed playing Rach 3 more than his more famous Rach 2, citing that Rach 2 is more uncomfortable to play. Rach himself played the less chordal version of the cadenza.
“Rachmaninov wrote two versions of this cadenza: his original thought was the bold, chordal version; the alternative is lighter, filigreed, scherzo-like.”
Disclaimer: Ossia of the first half of the cadenza is chordal, and half way into the cadenza, only the chordal version exists.
I should say that while a concerto is to showcase the solo instrument and its performer, the orchestra can sometimes make or break the overall interpretation of a piece. I have listened to Argerich’s, Horowitz’s, and Ashkenazy’s Rach 3 first movement and much to my surprise, I didn’t like Horowitz’s RCA recording with Reiner as much.
First of all, Argerich’s Rach 3 is fast. She played the non-ossia part. Even so, her notes just seemed to fly by, and I don’t know how that is doing justice to a colorful music literature. Rach 3 is not all about fast. There are measures that require accelerando, and some ritardo. But the overall tempo is calm. The melody doesn’t sound “right” with a fast tempo. I have to say that I’m much disappointed with the recording dubbed, “the ultimate Rach3.” Argerich didn’t put effort in understanding Rach 3.
Horowitz did a good job, but his orchestra accompaniment failed to due its part. Through out the first movement, I heard the prominence of the piano and had a hard time hearing the orchestra, especially when the orchestral melody is supposed to overcome the piano background. Horowitz’s interpretation is better than Argerich, but I can’t say that it is the best version. I think perhaps the name, Horowitz, added some factor into judging the piece and it seems unfair to compare a future pianist’s interpretation to that of Horowitz’s. However, I enjoyed most of the first movement. I focused on the cadenza, and like Argerich, Horowitz chose the less chordal version, which is fine. Yet, he played the second half of the cadenza’s chords way too fast. The speed took away the powerful tone that the chords demand. True, he crescendoed as he neared the end of the cadenza to bring to the climax, and then descrendoed into piano. But compared it to Ashkenazy’s cadenza (same sections), I found boldness and power in Ashkenazy’s interpretation, the similar boldness and power that one expects to hear in a Rachmaninov.
Ashkenazy had a good orchestra to perform with, and that helped. I enjoyed his Rach 3 the most. What wowed me over is the fact that he played the cadenza so well and so vigor. Those chords are not easy to play correctly and it takes endurance because the hands are constantly playing octaves. His choice of the “ossia” cadenza made more sense to the continuity of the melody. It just didn’t make sense to me when I heard the cadenza’s beginning in Horowitz/Argerich recordings. I would like to hear the chords a little bit faster, just a little bit faster, in Ashkenazy.
Even Rach himself enjoyed playing Rach 3 more than his more famous Rach 2, citing that Rach 2 is more uncomfortable to play. Rach himself played the less chordal version of the cadenza.
