Customer Reviews

Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No. 3,Op. 30 / Suite No. 2 for two pianos ~ Argerich

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This beautiful, romantic,finger-killer, arm-breaking of a concerto has had many recordings and several pianists adopted it as a very special calling card during periods of their career: Bolet, Ashkenazy, Horowitz, and most certainly Rachmaninoff himself (well served in his CD reissue). None generate the daredevil excitement, natural abandon, and instinctive musicality of Argerich in this recording (unedited, single-take, live performance). It is wonderful music and rapturous piano playing. The only drawback is that after listening to this, other well-loved performances may pale. This CD belongs in every classical collection...... even violinists'.

Having said all that, the original cd issue had a much more rewarding coupling: a masterful performance of Tchaikowsky's First, also from a live performance, conducted by the late Kiril Kondrashin..... an electric partnership, arguably more exciting than Argerich's "studio" recording, good as that one also is. Aren't we lucky to witness her career?

Argerich achieves a level of excitement, propulsion, and drama that is astounding to behold. Her performance of Rach 3 is infused with a relentless virtuosity coupled with an inspired artistry. This recording, alone, would have made Argerich a piano legend.

I believe the spirit of the Rach 3 allows for two different, yet complementary, approaches to interpretation: one that is poetic, reflective, and reposeful; another that is assertive, unabashedly passionate, and extroverted. The wondrously expansive Van Cliburn live recording from 1958 (made just 2 days after his triumphant return from the Tchaikovsky competition!) is an ideal example of the first approach. The powerhouse performance by Argerich on this disc represents the latter. Of course, both readings contain elements of poetry and bravura, but I'm referring to the overall character of the interpretation.

Whereas Cliburn exhibits a refined and restrained romanticism, Argerich bears a naked lustfulness that would make one blush. There is an unmistakable and highly-charged eroticism in the Rach 3 that Argerich brings forth which makes any of the Horowitz versions seem like comparative models of Victorian propriety. The comparison is akin to undressing your lover one button at a time versus tearing the shirt clean off in a fit of unfettered passion.

Consider, as one example, the ascending chordal thrusts in the first "mezzo forte" section in the last movement (eight bars after the famous glissando). Argerich turns what usually is a rhythmically labored section for other pianists into an explosion of kinetic excitement. Just hearing this section alone made me want to buy the CD because it revealed a conception of the Rach I never before encountered - a reading of unsurpassed verve and high-wire confidence. This is pianism at its most primal and viscerally compelling.

Yes, there are mistakes to be found: a wrong note here and there; a synchronization problem before a third-movement orchestral tutti; a missed cue at the cadenza in the last movement; and some muddled passage work where notes are either blurred or almost inaudible. There are times when one wishes Argerich would give equal prominence to the left hand such as in the electrifying "a tempo come prima" section in - again - the last movement (where Rachmaninov, in a fit of compositional swagger, unleashes a torrent of sixteenth and thirty-second notes over a static and tranquil orchestral support; the image is that of a peaceful ocean deep whose inhabitants are unaware of the hurricane raging on the surface; the way Rachmaninov concludes this audacious section is the musical equivalent of a rapidly spinning top winding down to a sudden stop).

Yet, there are voices and textures Argerich highlights to beautiful effect in other places that are all but absent in other recordings. Her relatively small fingers forces her to break some chords in the short cadenza preceding the "Tempo I. Alla breve," in the third movement, but, otherwise, she clutches Rachmaninov's hefty chords by the fistful. Her playing is among the most muscular of any pianist, including Horowitz or Earl Wild.

I'll conclude with one comment on a part of the work that is hardly ever referred to, yet is one of the most achingly beautiful in the entire concerto. It is the "Moderato" section that occurs after the first movement cadenza. A further restatement and development of the movement's lyrical second subject, it takes place soon after the point where the piano (playing an accompaniment based on arpeggio figures) and a succession of woodwinds (reminiscing on the movement's first theme) engage in a tender duet. Rachmaninov rewrites the last note of each measure of the second subject restatement a third interval lower, thus creating an extraordinary feeling of emotional denouement. The second subject is the heart of the first movement, and its inspired treatment here represents the culmination of a fantastic musical journey. Yes, the final "Tempo I" recapitulation section restates the first theme, thus closing the circle, and soon brings the movement to its technical conclusion; but, in a profound way, the emotional conclusion occurs in the above "Moderato" section.

Martha Argerich brings this section off in the most soul-stirring fashion imaginable. It's better than Cliburn's treatment (although his is fine in its own way), and it exposes the Horowitz versions as stilted and over-mannered. In that moment, Argerich ensured that the most exciting and rapturous Rach 3 was also the most meaningful and touching.

Argerich has given us a Rach 3 for the ages.

...before deciding this is the "Greatest Rachmaninoff 3rd ever."

This is one overhyped CD. Yes, Lady Martha plays like all the blazes, yes, you can almost hear the sonic booms behind her, and yes, she undoubtedly had about eighty espressos before she went out on stage. Yes, the orchestra struggles to keep up with her. Yes, it's electrifying. But the concerto isn't just about being electrifying. The opening theme, for example, is a mournful hymn of longing and nostalgia that in Argerich's hands is simply *fast.* See Spot. See Spot Run. See Spot Run Fast. But there's more to the "Rach 3" than this approach.

At the speeds at which she plays her tone tends to range from harsh to not quite so harsh. And her favorite expressive device seems to be rubato, which she can overuse. First movement, after exposition, the main theme comes back, followed by choppy playful piano part; then comes a series of rising variants on the theme, tension building to a great big fortissimo tutti. In those rising variants (sorry, I don't have a score in front of me so I can't give bar numbers) she varies and stretches the rubato almost to the point of pretension, to my ears. But whether it's "pretentious" or not, I've heard other pianists do so much more expressively with this section, altering the coloration of the notes, the pedaling, etc. But at the speed she is playing there's not much she apparently can do besides the push-pull rubato. It's dramatic and exciting the first time, but after repeated listenings it gets a little limiting. (Please note in reference to the reviewer above who said he listened to Rachmaninoff's own recording: I didn't say she does nothing here, just what she does is pretentious and frankly cliched.)

This performance is also poorly recorded (not her fault, of course), with a recessed and often muffled orchestra. There are key sections where the brass cannot be heard.

All-in-all, this recording actually is worth owning, especially if you're a fan of virtuoso piano playing. But it's hardly the last word in the Rach 3, yet its reputation is such that I fear many people, always looking for (and believing the hype about) "ultimate" recordings, will stop searching after acquiring this one, because after all the sticker on the shrink wrap says it's "The Ultimate Rachmaninoff 3rd," so it is, right? Nope. Worth hearing, definitely. Even worth owning perhaps (despite the warts outlined above, I still keep my copy), but there's still so much in this music that Argerich and company don't bring out. Besides, the Third is too rich a piece for any one version to be called "The Ultimate." Have a listen. There's a lot to enjoy. But beware the hype.

While there are more note accurate or more carefully contemplated performances of Rachmaninov's Third Piano Concerto, few, if any match, Argerich's recording for pure intensity. Thus, if you're looking for a big, sweeping recording of this concerto, look elsewhere. However, if you want a Rach 3 that will set your speakers on fire, this disk is an excellent place to start.

Primarily because this was taped live, Argerich isn't perfect. She makes mistakes, and leaves the orchestra in her dust on more than one occaision. What is remarkable, though, is that she has a definite conception of her own for the concerto, and pulls it off because she has the technical tools necessary. Thus, when she falters, she is able to regain her composure, keeping everything on track.

Argerich adopts very fast tempi in the outer movements. Fortunately, this is a concerto well suited to such an approach. Rachmaninoff wrote two interchangeable first movement cadenzas, one fast and scherzo-like, and the other heavy and chordal. Argerich wisely chooses the faster, lighter cadenza, which not only suits her interpretation, but the concerto better in general. Moreover, the piano dominates to such a degree, in any recording, that there is not a need to place a large emphasis on Rachmaninoff's orchestration through slower tempi. Unlike Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony, this is not a piece where an orchestra can simply revel in the textures of the sounds it produces. Argerich either knows this, or perhaps she simply doesn't care. Regardless, she turns it into a show piece for the piano, which really is the way it should be.

I'd guess there are several dozen recordings of the Rach 3 currently available, and what really puts this rendition in the upper echelon is the finale. Where other pianists fail to maintain their energy from the earlier movements, Argerich only gains in speed and power as the climax approaches. The result is a completely satisfying finale, which I've found lacking in many other recordings.

In all the parts that place the piano at center stage--the cadenza, the transition from second to third movement, the finale--Argerich shines. She plays every note with authority, unlike many other pianists who either slow down or don't articulate as carefully at difficult junctures. In sum, this is a brilliant performance. It just may not suit every listener perfectly.

I am always a little hesitant about posting reviews of classical works. Ironically--although I cut my teeth on rock'n'roll and folk--I find that I mostly listen to classical music these days. My ex-wife used to have it on all the time, and one day, it seemed, I suddenly realized that I could really HEAR it and understand what was going on. Even if I lacked the vocabulary to describe it, on some level, I comprehended it. (A mini-miracle after almost having failed "Music Appreciation" in college: just because, on one exam, I cited "Never Can Say Goodbye" as an example of a "cantata.")

But serioiusly, I live in a region that it still lucky enough to have 24 hour classical music on public radio. It has been an education in itself. I'm so grateful for it and have become an avid supporter. (BTW WMHT in Schenectady, NY is now available online as a webcast, so if you're living in an area that is underserved, try tuning them in.)

But one thing I have noticed--even after all the fuss over Rachmaninoff a few years back due to the use of the Rach 3 in the film SHINE--there is relatively little Rachmaninoff on my local NPR station. It seems like such an obvious choice. This recording in particular, since it seems like every second piano piece they play is by Martha Argerich.

Reading over someof the reviews posted below, I can well understand why some critics find Argerich's performance to be definitive...and also why others dispute that assertion. I don't want to be wishy-washy here, but as a babe in the classical woods, I cannot help but be overwhelmed by Argerich's virtuosity. But I can also understand why some might find it too flashy. One of the beautiful things about classical music though--I am discovering--is that there is much more room for interpretation than I had ever imagined. Does there need to be a definitive version? Listening to the Argerich/Freire/Chailly collaboration has only made me more curious to hear others.

This could be the start of something big.

The sensationally gifted pianist Martha Argerich, with two decades of classical music stardom (if there is such a thing) already behind her, took the Berlin audience by storm with this passionate recording of the very difficult Rachmaninov Third Concerto in 1982. Ever since, it's easy to see why -- her fiery personality and virtuoso pianism are flat-out sweeping and as the Amazon.com reviewer points out, physically exciting indeed. The orchestra under Riccardo Chailly needs a while to grow accustomed to Argerich's trail-blazing tempo, but once they do, it makes for all the better listening experience. Which does not mean to say she's incapable of playing slowly -- quite the opposite. A listener is more than willing to forgive her a couple of missed notes, especially in the first movement; rather, the climax of the closing Finale may just leave you breathless and forget anything else. The studio-recorded suite for two pianos is another treat and Argerich's fellow Argentinian Nelson Freire more than holds his own with her. (Although the more expensive CD with the same Third Concerto and Tchaikovsky's First is more preferred, the rare suite deserves having!) Simply put, this is a must for Rachmaninov fans, Argerich fans and probably classical music fans, too.

with so many glowing reviews of Argerich's early (1982) live recording of the Rachmaninov Third, I can only add that I was happy to see the original coupling deleted in favor of the Suite #2 for two pianos. Everyone owns a good Tachikovsky First Concerto already. What Freire and Argerich achieve in the suite is without equal -- tis is a pet piece of mine, and to my ears their united sense of style and virtuosity is quite exceptional. If you want more of their collaboration, it can be found on a Philips Duo that includes all the recordings Argerich made in the two-piano format, a favorite of hers wince she gave up much of her solo playing.

The only other point I'd like to make is that Argerich's concerto performance has been a bit misrepresented here. She isn't all-out dramatic, propulsive, exciting, etc., as other reviewers claim. The opening to the first movement is notably laid back and even recessive. Where other virtuosos come flying out of the gate, Argerich bides her time and creates thrilling climaxes a few at a time. This comes as a blessed relief; what makes the Rachmaninov Third hard to take is its relentless showmanship. "Finger-killing" isn't a compliment, and Argerich makes the work much less nerve-racking by limiting its thunderous assaults.

I admit right away that Martha Argerich - just like Cherkassky, Pogorelich or Richter - is one those a piano mavericks about whose artistry I have never much cared. However, this is not to say that I don't admire these great artists. Indeed I do, for everybody who has the courage to be so tremendously personal at the keyboard deserves a great deal of admiration. In general I would gladly give Martha five full stars for that alone, for example to her great Debut Recital (including the wild Liszt Sonata which is NOT part of this recital but was coupled with it on the DG Originals series). As Harold Schonberg put it, her playing may be undisciplined from time to time, but it is always of interest. Strangely enough, this is not at all the case with this recording, especially not with Rachmaninoff's Third Concerto.

To begin with, the performance is nowhere near as spectacular enough, purely technically, as many people may lead you believe. With but few exceptions, Martha is not at all faster than the young Horowitz or Rachmaninoff himself - and yes, in the exceptions, such as the notoriously rushed opening of the third movement, she is too fast and distinctly less musical than pretty much anybody else; if you agree with the eminent Rachmaninoff scholar Barrie Martyn that this opening has no melodic significance, you may like the rush, but I don't. In fact, there are far too many passages (including the first movement cadenza and almost the whole second movement) where Martha is positively sloppy, if not technically, at all events musically. Besides, to equal virtuosity with speed is a very superficial notion. Martha may have very deft fingers, but she certainly lacks brilliance and bravura: her sonority is just as colourless and limited as the muffled and distant orchestra under the timid and cautious baton of Chailly. How much of it is live remains obscure and the early digital sound (1982) is quite a bit subpar, but these are both totally irrelevant matters. The recording is, above all, artistically flawed.

In short, interesting performance but, in comparison with others, perfectly dull almost all the time. If you want real virtuosity coupled with superior and really original artistry, like it or not it doesn's matter, there are Horowitz in any of his three official recordings (1930 with Coates, 1951 with Reiner, and 1978 with Ormandy, live), the blistering performance of Jorge Bolet in the Indiana University (1969, also live) or, of course, the powerful rendition of Rachmaninoff himself (with Ormandy, 1939-40) which completely transcends whatever sonic shortcomings the recording may have. If you are keen on more musical and less dashing approaches, there are Bolet's late recording for DECCA (1982, with Ivan Fischer) or Ashkenazy with Fistoulari (1963) or Previn (1970-71) for the same label. Interestingly, all of these recordings but the last one include the less difficult cadenza, which is also the one used by Martha here. Yet, neither here nor anywhere else does she do anything memorable enough to put her in the exalted company of the aforementioned artists. Nor does Chailly, for that matter.

The Second Suite for two pianos fares much better, though this is doubtless due to the fact that it is much less popular and hence less frequently recorded. Nevertheless, Marta and Nelson (Freier) are a most interesting alternative to the rather more restrained (in the best sense of the word) Ashkenazy/Previn duo. This recording is the same that is coupled with Ravel and Lutoslawski on this CD from PHILIP's The Originals series that has a cover with which every hard rock band would be proud, showing Marta and Nelson in the company of strong light and cigarette smoke, standing against each other, as well as against the concert grand, and ready to fight. Judging by Rachmaninoff's Second Suite, the disc is well worth hearing and I don't mind telling you that it is this recording which contributes most to the three-star rating. Martha's Third Concerto will hardly bear repeated listening.

P. S. By the way, the booklet contains a simply disgustingly purple ''essay'' by Bryce Morrison who is so amazingly over the top and wide of the mark that I am astonished that his crap was published at all.

One of the reviewers below wrote that Argerich's recording "... exposes the Horowitz versions as stilted and over-mannered". I can only conclude that this reviewer has only listened to Horowitz's recording with Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra in the mid-1970s, which was indeed a stilted and over-mannered rendition, but for understandable emotional reasons which I won't go into here. However, this epithet can certainly not be applied to the Horowitz recordings from the 1930s and 1940s, in particular the recording with Coates and the incredible live performance with Barbirolli on the podium in about 1946 or 47, a recording of which surfaced for public consumption in the 1990s. The performance with Barbirolli is surely the most stupendous performance of this concerto on record. I mention this because it seemed pretty clear to me that Argerich's performance was heavily influenced by these earlier Horowitz recordings - the tempos are Horowitz's tempos, the fast passage-work in the 2nd and 3rd movements is very close to Horowitz's, the attack in many places is punchy like Horowitz and not at all like Rachmaninoff's softer attack.

Is this surprising? Not at all. For most pianists, Horowitz's readings were the definitive ones - after all, that was Rachmaninoff's opinion and who are they to disagree! Also, Horowitz was the one who put this concerto on the map; its popularity today is in no small measure due to Horowitz's initial championing of it. Add to that the fact that Argerich is a Horowitz fan and admits to great disappointment that she never met him.

What is impressive is that Argerich alone manages to equal Horowitz in speed and accuracy, well just about. The speed of the 3rd movement is phenomenal, as is the accuracy of the famous acceleration from the 2nd movement into the 3rd. However in the lyrical passages she does not sing as Horowitz and Rachmaninoff did, it is all too percussive. For example, the ravishing beauty of the first theme in the second movement is not brought out in full.

So overall I would say this is a derivative performance. It doesn't come across as being full of Argerich's own ideas and it is clear that was serious disagreement between Argerich and the conductor as to tempo. The conductor takes the tutti passages painfully slowly - he ruins the second movement introduction by turning it into a monotonous dirge - and Argerich frequently has to come in at a faster tempo throughout the performance, forcing the conductor and orchestra to play catch-up. It is still an enjoyable performance but nowhere near the overall polish of the earlier Horowitz recordings.

Also on the CD was a recording of the famous Rachmaninoff Second Suite for 2 pianos, played by Argerich and Nelson Freire, another excellent pianist. Again, one is struck by the sheer speed of the performance and in their desire to have faster tempos than anyone else, Argerich and Freire turn the 2nd movement into a farce - the sheer pace means that the whole thing is an unmusical blur (save for the slower middle section). Instead of being a waltz it is more like accompanying music for a Keystone Cops movie. The rest of the piece is very good but again better recordings are to be found elsewhere, in particular the Tamanov and Bruk recording although again, their 2nd movement is too fast. A surprisingly good version was recorded by John Ogdon and his wife (I forget her name, Brenda Lucas possibly).

I never thought his 3rd piano concerto was my favorite until I heard this performance. One can only imagine Rachmaninoff himself standing in the ovation clapping his huge hands. I only wish I could have heard and seen this live performance myself. Martha Argerich and Riccardo Chailly truly deliver an incomparable performance.