For those that don't understand Horowitz playing in this recording. 1. Horowitz was from a generation of pianist that was taking huge risks on stage. What pianist today doesn't do anymore. They were taking a lot of freedom in their playing. The technical accuracy wasn't their concerns, but the feeling of the moment and their soul. Horowitz changed a lot of chords as well on that recording. He would probably play it totally differently the night after. Also if you listen to Cortot and even Rachmaninov himself playing Chopin, Mozart,... they used to take a lot of freedom with all those pieces. I'm sure that Chopin, Liszt,... improvised and took a lot of liberties too. 2. That recording was after the performance of the Rach3. He played that as an encore. 3.Horowitz had a very crazy life. And a lot of damage after his multiple therapy with electro choc. I'm sure all the great pianist today are inspired by those old fashion pianist and treat them with great respect. 4. It is recording that make musician playing so close to the score today, but you can be sure that all the musicians from the 19th century were more "free" with their playing. I have read a book about Chopin and somebody describing his playing on a lounge after dinner, of his own etudes and all the freedom that he was taking. They were able to play the score perfectly but it wasn't what they were looking for. They were looking for the soul, the magic, the drugs in music.
Horowitz was born in 1903 while Richter, in 1915. Not a big difference. It's rather 'those times the dichotomy existed: playing by score vs playing by soul.' This dispute originates somewhere in 1840s, with Mendelssohn promoting the former and Wagner, the latter. Today, the concept of precisely following the author's marks is, alas, overwhelmingly predominant.
Richters performance is the best. Not only because of the sound quality of the recording, but the tempo and the dymanics are just the right ones in every passage.
Richter and Gilels play it the way i was fortunate enough to learn it from a student of Rachmaninoff. Of the two, Giles plays it closest to how I heard it played as she taught it to me.
Interesting comment and what a privilige to learn from one of Rachmaninoffs own students! There is recording on TH-cam, which claims to be Rachmaninoff himself playing. Quite different to Richter and Gilels though all are equally amazing! I wonder what you think about it.
I'm touched my Moiseiwitch's performance. It's so human. I love the lightness of it. It shows a side of the piece one doesn't normally hear. The outer sections have a scherzo-esque feel and the middle section tender, poignant, and nostalgic. Simon's is a little too "bull in a china shop" for my taste. Although it might make sense for an encore performance. It certainly gets the fiery, "vomit out of your eyeballs" idea across. Horowitz's has all the levels of sound I was wanting but didn't get in the first two. It has a hint of the scherzo feel at the beginning, brilliant repeated chords, the big moments still noble and elegant somehow, the middle section dreamy. Unexpected how he accelerando-s to a faster tempo than the opening. Daring, unusual ending. He misses some of the notes there and gets the music. Magical. Richter. Very serious, rhythmic, dark, tragic at the opening. Grand at the big chords. Pleading, sorrowful, truly Russian in the middle section. Sinister and with great momentum the transition back to the first theme. More heroic and even more tragic ending. Storybook ending. Gilels similar to Richter's concept, though more complex in the opening section. Heroic big chords. He really arrives at something huge before the middle section the way I was missing in the others. Transition to the middle section was my favorite of all of them. The middle section seems to roll out of his shirt sleeves. I love his magical projection of the RH inner voice before the accelerando. I felt he got too big too soon in the accelerando, but thought he got the heroic nature of the following chordal passage better than the rest. I also liked how he drove it home through the final run rather than changing the character there the way most do. His performance made the most sense to me.
Horrible, isn't it. I can't believe that some people actually "like" his playing. This would have never flown 50 years ago. Something is wrong. The simple reason is an economic one. Who goes to classical music concerts? Asians and old people. Old people will die soon. A Chinese "superstar" classical musician puts butts in the seats and injects some much-needed cash into in an industry already propped up by subsidies and private donations. It's also a move that hopes to tap into a potentially lucrative Chinese domestic market for classical music that may emerge in tandem with the growth of China's middle class. It's a move the industry can't afford not to make. Unfortunately the music suffers (at this stage anyways).
I also did not like the Lang Lang version, but not all Chinese pianists are bad. Yuja Wang is just about the best around when it comes to female Pianists.
Barere captures the intensity and chaos of Rachmaninoff's writing like no other. You're not supposed to be caressing the piano and making tender love to it with this prelude. You're supposed to be struggling with it until teeth come pouring out of its mouth.
Gilels came closest to my all time favorite performance of this Prelude, which was not included. Do yourself a favor and find Nicolai Lugansky's live performance - a beauty of sound
Benno - too slow, looses it's passion, recording is poor low tech - sounds like mono! Simon - This is more like it! Beautiful playing! Power ending! WOW! Horowitz - echoey like in a concert hall, nice speed, hammering passion in the heavy parts as only a Russian understands, wonderful technique of course, middle section moving and passionate! He's hard to beat! Possibly my favorite! His ending is better than Simon because even at neck breaking pace, there is still clarity when Simon sinks into mud. Richter - I remember he was considered the best of the last great group of 20th century Russian pianists. This performance is crisp and clear, and I love the emphasis on the base line! The middle...oh the middle! Here he shines above the rest! It's perfect and nearly to tears! Then hold on to your shorts - the finale is measured and packed to the end to a breathless finish, clear and crisp to the end and all Russian all the way! This tops Horowitz! Gilels - Dear consummate Gilels! He plays with style and class above the rest. It's militant and absolutely disciplined, yet every note oozing with Russian passion! The middle breaks my heart, it is the sorrow and pain of oppression and loneliness only a Russian understands. The ending with the taste of Gilels, absolutely perfect and I say to myself, why of course THAT'S how it should be! He is the best! You saved the best for last!
Richter --always understanding the architecture of the piece and performed brilliantly : Gilels my favourite and probaly closest to Rach's version with the inner voicings of th middle section
Each artist had something unique to say. Each is nothing like the other. All are profound. My sentimental favorite is Horowitz. He has a lilt to his interpretations that just melts me away.
I’ve listened to more than twenty pianists play this. Everyone from Prokofiev on piano roll to Lang Lang. Every time someone said “This is the best!” I’d follow it down. I can’t tell you who my second favorite is. Only my favorite, and it is, oddly, completely clear and obvious. Richter. Period.
Now, this is my idea of a good time! Bravo, Moiseiwitsch! The Barere is like being beat up with fists that give great pleasure instead of pain. Wow, what a dynamic performance. The Richter was my favorite for it's clarity and loving attention to detail. I like Richter's respect for the much needed build of of the slow accelerandos into a fit of recapitulated ecstasy. Then The Gilels I thought played the rhapsodic middle section magically, although Horowitz was sensitive, as well.
Definitely Richter and Giles for the musical performance, especially on the second melodious part which they don't play too fast so that we can enjoy it, and for the last part (reprise) using a very slow tempo then increasing, as Valentina Lisitsa plays it. Splendid !
Moiseiwitsch: very deep and classical in its form. Nice discovery.... Barer: the neurotic side of Rachmaninov, breathtaking but too rushed for me (interesting, though, for comparison purposes) Horowitz: plays this emotionally charged prelude as if it were an Etude. I cannot connect to this interpretation Richter: what a visionary interpretation. regardless of personal preferences, this one clearly stands out. Gilels: when Granite Man plays Rachmaninov, everything else fades. Truly exceptional ! All in all, Richter and Gilles introduce us to a new world of vertigo and sentiment. I have a clear preference for Gilels whose play is darker than Richter's - but between the two, it is really a matter of personal taste.... :o) Thanks to Gullivior for posting this comparison. Score in hand, that is how you get to know better such an amazing prelude...
Richter is peerless in Rachmaninov as this recording shows. What a pity he didn't play all of the Preludes and Etudes. Gilels comes in second - the way he builds the power of the piece from what initially sounds a bit plodding is jaw dropping. Richter is different in that he uses a wide dynamic palette. I turned the sound up at the beginning only to have to turn it down after about eight bars.
J'ai écouté avec attention tous ces grands pianistes, et celui qui retient le plus mon attention est sans hésitation Richter. Le passage à partir de 12:40 est magistral.
Слушал-вслушивался в каждое исполнение. Лучше всех: музыкально-точнее посылу-нотам автора С. Рахманинова прозвучало у Святослава Рихтера, рядом, но после в целом по качеству Е. Гиллельс. И всё-таки идеально-безгрешного исполнения-звучания среди них не было: таков мой отклик-эхо. Слушатель-зритель, и только - Виктор СПб.
Richter delivers a savage performance. His big claws ravage the piano. Every time I listen to a piece by someone else I wonder what Richter would have made of it. He could also play very poetically though. I also love Gilels.
I love both Richter and Gilels here! Richter plays it closer to how Rachmaninoff played it. I have to say as far as this particular piece I think Rachmaninoff's own recording of it is the best. I do enjoy Gilels interpretation though and Richter for his passion and authenticity.
Thank you gullivior for posting this! What a neat idea to compare these! And how fun to see what a varied community of piano-lovers is out there! I'm hoping to play this in a master class and it's wonderfully helpful to hear these different versions. I'm writing as I listen and so far I've only heard the first two and Moiseiwitsch is wonderful. Not hugely impressed with Barere so far (so rushed!).I expect I'll love Richer as he's my favorite pianist ever. Thanks again!
Rakhmaninov wrote "All marcia" at the head of this piece. Unfortunately only Richter's and Gilels's interpretations capture this spirit. Of them, I think Richter's is superior, it is more subtle than Gilels. Gilel's does a wonderful job of bringing the inner voice out in the middle section when the theme appears for the second time, but his retransition to the spirit and tempo of the march-like outer section feels to abrupt for me and the climax prior to the E-flat major second strain is premature. Both Horowitz and Barere (and to a lesser extent Moiseiwitsch) show why Rakhmaninov marked the tempo crotchet = 108; it is not possible to play the piece accurately at tempos much faster than this (nor does it sound march like, it becomes more like a study--Moiseiwitsch is the most note accurate at the faster tempo, and also the most interesting of these three). So for me it is (on these recordings): 1 Richter, 2. Gilels, 3. Moiseiwitsch, 4. Barere, 5. Horowitz. (By the way, Richter is the ONLY one who does not inexcusably speed up in the final couple of bars). That's my two cents worth
+Simon Perry I think horowitz captures it very well, maybe a bit more than gilels. EDIT: I had listened to a different recording than this one of horowitz. This audio sounds distorted.
+Abisal Gergiev I can't believe I'm responding to such a trivial point, but these things irk me, so here goes. It depends how you transliterate the Cyrillic letter "х". The system I use (Library of Congress) transliterates х as "kh", so I transliterate Рахманинов as Rakhmaninov. Others are free to use whatever system they like, just don't go correcting me thinking there is only one way to spell Рахманинов using the Latin alphabet, because there isn't. You will find, Rakhmaninov, Rachmaninov, Rachmaninoff, and probably some others -- none of them are "wrong"
1st one and Richter were my votes. I loved the way Richter did the final few bars. Most pianists seem to throw that away but he gave it a bit of magic.
This is my all-time favourite piano piece and all the piano performers are absolute perfect, and my favourite pianist in this recording is Sviatoslav Richter, and probably recorded in 1959, is my all-time favourite of Rachmaninov`s music as well as Chopin, my favourite composer of piano music.
interesting comparison. I thought both Richter and Gilels superb in their own ways. Horowitz played the middle section with such lyrical intensity, but he sped up so much in the final section he couldn't manage to play the notes, which rather spoilt the effect. Moisevitch was the most poetic. Didn't much like Barere, not steady enough for something marked as a march tempo. Overall I'd give it to Richter.
I agree with your assessment on the relative merits, but as much as I respect Richter's interpretation, I rank Gilels' first among the versions here. I must say, however, that none of these was truly satisfying. It seems like none fully and consistently achieved the phrasing, dynamics, rubato etc called for by this truly marvelous piece. Above all, the fierce and violent struggle, the wistful yearning, the majesty and determination inherent must be conveyed. Alas, the tendency to rush, to push through where there should be a dramatic or reflective pause, to overdo the bravura, is often present. In short, don't play it like an encore piece (although it often is).
The audience applause at the end clearly reflects their agreement with me (haha) that Gilels breathed fire and thundering force and dynamic control into the bookends and heartbreak in the middle. Can you imagine a night of Gilels and Richter trading renditions of these jaw breakers for fun?!
Moiseiwitsch knew Rachmaninoff and spoke with him often on the latter's intentions on how his works should be played. He usually got the same answer the master gave everybody, to the effect of: "You should play it the way you think it should be played." Simone Barere also knew Rachmaninoff, but he played things his way. Barere was well-known for his virtuosity but could also play very songfully when he felt like it. Much has been written about Horowitz, who was a close friend of Rachmaninoff, and who the latter once said "plays my works better than I do" -- a high compliment, considering that Rachmaninoff had a formidable technique. Richter is probably best-known for his flawless interpretations of how work was written, meaning that he neither added nor took away very little from the printed score. His interpretation here is surprisingly innovative.gig Gilels was a man of many moods, and he rarely performed the same work the same way twice. I like his interpretation of this work the best of the five given; it seems the most faithful to the printed score, while still allowing for some personal interpretation. Your opinion may vary. If you want to hear how the maestro himself played his own work, look here (put it in the search box): watch?v=F-zKWgjrOmI and here: watch?v=tl-kG4H4VrQ . Vastly different from each other.
knott ptyx Non vi è un Primo e un Secondo, un Uno e un Due. Per me conta solo che sia un Russo a calcare queste Note Sublimi! Grande Scuola Russa.....insuperata e insuperabile! Marco Rotondi
I’ve probably listened to more than twenty pianists play this, starting originally with this video, and I don’t know the names of the first three pianists. I’ll forget some. Lugansky. Kissin. Yuja Wang. Prokofiev on piano roll. Rachmaninoff on piano roll Josef Hofmann. Cziffra. Lisitska. Ashkenazi. Van Cliburn. Weissenberg. Moiseiwitsch. Horowitz, more than one version. Lang Lang. Scheps. Pletnev. Sokholov. De Larrocha. I’m probably missing a few. Gilels more than one version, but he’s here. And after all that, I can tell you definitively: Richter without a shred of doubt. The BEST.
Richter showing what a class act he really was. The competition is comparatively weak (Moiseiwitsch was arguably the only serious performance here, and falls short in comparison), but that should take nothing away from a powerful and robust performance from Richter.
Amazing how each player has their own style of phrasing, dynamics, and even staccato. I like Moiseiwitch the most here. He keeps a respectful tempo, his phrasing is emotionally engaging, and his smooth transitions between different techniques are really good (no dramatic pauses to disguise inadequate playing, as Gilels does). Very nice upload!
Benno Moiseiwitsch is my favorite, despite the disadvantage of the sound quality. Stylistically superior to the others imo, (for this particular piece).
Richter got something that the others didn't Horowitz plays with the piece as a confirmed piano player would play with fur elise Gilels seems to greatefully conduct the music out lf his hands, the interpretation feels very mechanically pure. A B+ A-
What wonderful service for posting all these together! The musically worshipful will have quite a time deciding who is 'best' of all these greats! Bowing to composer Rachmaninoff-I think ALL are happy experiences of a great piece-with fascinating differences. Having heard it live often, my only regret is we have only the old archaic sound, which often obscures the actual piano 'tone' that can be so differentiating in performances of this. Barere was famous for this, for example. Thanks!
I find Horowitz’s performance, in spite of the wrong notes, indescribably thrilling. Technique isn’t everything, true, but his technique allows him to make more varied and controlled sounds than almost any other pianist, excepting the greats like Hofmann, Rach, Lhevinne etc. The second A section (9:07) in particular is amazing.
An incredible video! Thank you for that! Professionally they are all high up, but for me the interpretation of Richtor was great! horoits ... Haha, a great pianist and a great artist!
@@EmptyVee00000 Non, pas Ashkenazy. Je m'explique. Ashkenazy est un pianiste honnête, mais je le trouve un peu sur coté. En effet, il ne donne que peu de véritable sens à la musique, juste de l'effet. Il y a des pianistes qui allient les deux parfaitement ( Pogorelich, Michelangeli, Backhaus etc... ). Dans les pianistes modernes les versions de Virsalazze, Sokolov ou d'autres sont plus intéressantes. Après ce n'est que mon avis.
Guilhem Chameyrat Moi, je préfère les pianistes qui portent l’écouteur au delà du pianisme artisanal; Sokolov, Michelangeli, et Pogorelich n’avaient/n’ont pas cette qualité, malgré leur pianisme stratosphérique. Ashkenazy, Gilels, Lupu, Richter, sì.
@@EmptyVee00000 D'accord pour Gilels, Lupu, Richter : ce sont des pianistes qui sont universels, à l'image de Yudina, Sofronitsky, Schnabel ou Serkin. Ashkenazy est loin d'être un mauvais pianiste, je suis obligé de le reconnaître, mais je trouve qu'il n'y a pas assez de réflexion dans son travail, voilà tout.
Horowitz plays it like an encore, which is how I understand it was intended to serve; an encore to fill out the tenth side of a 78RPM recording of the 1930 premiere recording of the same composer's third concerto. In that context, I find it less objectionable.
Benno was a power machine with a good feeling too. It's hard to select just one performer and state the "favorite" for me because I can recognize strengths in each one. I love the overall interpretation and clarity especially the first section for Horowitz, although I've heard other recordings and like them much better. The middle lyrical section was beautifully "sung" but the last part for me was too fast to enjoy. I agree with a previous poster Marere is absolute madness...that was the fastest I heard. Richter did a nice job showcasing the first section by doing it slower but I think lacked the true grit it needs. I enjoyed the capricious entry with Gilels. I don't have a favorite with these recordings, but if forced, I might select Gilels. His balance and imperfection with the middle part won me over especially with the delightful voicing.
Moiseiwitch: Intimate, elegant, but not at his best. Barere: WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! Horowitz: Manic, passionate, not particularly comprehending, but who cares, you immediately understand why he's Horowitz. Richter: The century's greatest and you hear why here. Every bar gives you the reason why Rachmaninov wrote those notes. Gilels: More traditionally romantic and virtuoso, almost too much so, like it's a pose for him. Still, what a pianist.
Richter is just so superior. He is the King. But I really also admire Gilels for his amazing power. Like the bar fighter of pianists. And also really lyrical. Amazing pianists both.
In my opinion, I think Benno and has crazy accuracy, it is so underrated in this millenial generation, It actually sounds ten times better than this generation. Sviatoslov is very muisical but somehow incredibly incredibly accurate, that articulation and detail give it that edge crazy!!!
Horowitz plays really, really weird. He keeps going forward and forward without a reason, and the tempo gets really blurry (and lots of wrong notes). BUT the middle part was absolutely amazing
Everyone has is favourite, but Horowitz’s interpretetion for sure was the one more “authentic” and similar to the original, played by Rachmaninoff because the two were good friends and surely Horowitz knew much well how this piece should’ve sounded
Moiseiwitsch`s interpretation is as good as it gets! Such a pity that it is on a really old and scratchy tape. Barere is as crazy as his usual mood(in a good way). Horowitz is just as crazy as Barere here. However I`ve heard much more proper versions of him. Richter is simply perfect. His interpretation is beyond any imagination. And his technique is beyond any comparison. What a clarity! I sure can say the same stuff towards Gilels too. But something sounded just a pinch more perfect at the middle section which makes him my favourite. But there is a slight difference between them so why don`t we call both winners :)
Barere rushes everything. He's like a white guy trying to rap, or something like that. Horowitz goes for the widest swings in tempo and dynamics, pushes the tempo too much, is sloppy, and sounds a little inscrutable. Richter sound just about perfect (nothing is rushed, few missed notes), the most percussive and dramatic, and a rich timbre; he also makes the most of the silent places for the most dramatic effect. Gilels' interpretation is as good as Richter's, but different. I'm glad there are recordings of all these fine players. Moiseiwitsch is the most surprising to me. It sounds like he isn't trying.
For those that don't understand Horowitz playing in this recording.
1. Horowitz was from a generation of pianist that was taking huge risks on stage. What pianist today doesn't do anymore. They were taking a lot of freedom in their playing. The technical accuracy wasn't their concerns, but the feeling of the moment and their soul. Horowitz changed a lot of chords as well on that recording.
He would probably play it totally differently the night after.
Also if you listen to Cortot and even Rachmaninov himself playing Chopin, Mozart,... they used to take a lot of freedom with all those pieces. I'm sure that Chopin, Liszt,... improvised and took a lot of liberties too.
2. That recording was after the performance of the Rach3. He played that as an encore.
3.Horowitz had a very crazy life. And a lot of damage after his multiple therapy with electro choc.
I'm sure all the great pianist today are inspired by those old fashion pianist and treat them with great respect.
4. It is recording that make musician playing so close to the score today, but you can be sure that all the musicians from the 19th century were more "free" with their playing. I have read a book about Chopin and somebody describing his playing on a lounge after dinner, of his own etudes and all the freedom that he was taking.
They were able to play the score perfectly but it wasn't what they were looking for.
They were looking for the soul, the magic, the drugs in music.
I like this review very much.
Horowitz was born in 1903 while Richter, in 1915. Not a big difference. It's rather 'those times the dichotomy existed: playing by score vs playing by soul.' This dispute originates somewhere in 1840s, with Mendelssohn promoting the former and Wagner, the latter. Today, the concept of precisely following the author's marks is, alas, overwhelmingly predominant.
They were looking for music.
Richter's playing made me completely speechless, such a genius
Ah...... Richter! I wonder if the cohorts applauding Juja (the one with no funds for long enough dresses) heard about Richter et co.
Richters performance is the best. Not only because of the sound quality of the recording, but the tempo and the dymanics are just the right ones in every passage.
Richter and Gilels play it the way i was fortunate enough to learn it from a student of Rachmaninoff. Of the two, Giles plays it closest to how I heard it played as she taught it to me.
Interesting comment and what a privilige to learn from one of Rachmaninoffs own students! There is recording on TH-cam, which claims to be Rachmaninoff himself playing. Quite different to Richter and Gilels though all are equally amazing! I wonder what you think about it.
Seriously. They are all bloody geniuses.
Gilels! love his passion and doesn't hurry....it's march rhythm!
Mr. Sviatoslav Richter nails it, in my opinion. Thanks for the compilation !
Magistrale Sviatoslav Richter.È divino nella sua istrionica interpretazione.
I'm touched my Moiseiwitch's performance. It's so human. I love the lightness of it. It shows a side of the piece one doesn't normally hear. The outer sections have a scherzo-esque feel and the middle section tender, poignant, and nostalgic.
Simon's is a little too "bull in a china shop" for my taste. Although it might make sense for an encore performance. It certainly gets the fiery, "vomit out of your eyeballs" idea across.
Horowitz's has all the levels of sound I was wanting but didn't get in the first two. It has a hint of the scherzo feel at the beginning, brilliant repeated chords, the big moments still noble and elegant somehow, the middle section dreamy. Unexpected how he accelerando-s to a faster tempo than the opening. Daring, unusual ending. He misses some of the notes there and gets the music. Magical.
Richter. Very serious, rhythmic, dark, tragic at the opening. Grand at the big chords. Pleading, sorrowful, truly Russian in the middle section. Sinister and with great momentum the transition back to the first theme. More heroic and even more tragic ending. Storybook ending.
Gilels similar to Richter's concept, though more complex in the opening section. Heroic big chords. He really arrives at something huge before the middle section the way I was missing in the others. Transition to the middle section was my favorite of all of them. The middle section seems to roll out of his shirt sleeves. I love his magical projection of the RH inner voice before the accelerando. I felt he got too big too soon in the accelerando, but thought he got the heroic nature of the following chordal passage better than the rest. I also liked how he drove it home through the final run rather than changing the character there the way most do. His performance made the most sense to me.
I love Richter's playing, it's awesome
I came here from the awfull Lang Lang performance
HC Piano haha! People really agree with me ^_^
Horrible, isn't it. I can't believe that some people actually "like" his playing. This would have never flown 50 years ago. Something is wrong. The simple reason is an economic one. Who goes to classical music concerts? Asians and old people. Old people will die soon. A Chinese "superstar" classical musician puts butts in the seats and injects some much-needed cash into in an industry already propped up by subsidies and private donations. It's also a move that hopes to tap into a potentially lucrative Chinese domestic market for classical music that may emerge in tandem with the growth of China's middle class. It's a move the industry can't afford not to make. Unfortunately the music suffers (at this stage anyways).
How often does such a wide spectrum of people agree on something?
I also did not like the Lang Lang version, but not all Chinese pianists are bad. Yuja Wang is just about the best around when it comes to female Pianists.
Excruciating, to be sure. Must have been like watching an Asian Jo Ann Castle.
Barere captures the intensity and chaos of Rachmaninoff's writing like no other. You're not supposed to be caressing the piano and making tender love to it with this prelude. You're supposed to be struggling with it until teeth come pouring out of its mouth.
I met KV at the U of Iowa.
Gilels is my favourite, no doubt
yeah, it's most lyrical and powerful at the same time. The best perfomace of these five
@@jamcion0 don't think so. Richter is king
RICHTER ! He is one of the most when you don't need that fast pieces but dynamic rhythm !
Gilels came closest to my all time favorite performance of this Prelude, which was not included. Do yourself a favor and find Nicolai Lugansky's live performance - a beauty of sound
Was going to mention him if no one else did :)
Benno - too slow, looses it's passion, recording is poor low tech - sounds like mono! Simon - This is more like it! Beautiful playing! Power ending! WOW!
Horowitz - echoey like in a concert hall, nice speed, hammering passion in the heavy parts as only a Russian understands, wonderful technique of course, middle section moving and passionate! He's hard to beat! Possibly my favorite! His ending is better than Simon because even at neck breaking pace, there is still clarity when Simon sinks into mud.
Richter - I remember he was considered the best of the last great group of 20th century Russian pianists. This performance is crisp and clear, and I love the emphasis on the base line! The middle...oh the middle! Here he shines above the rest! It's perfect and nearly to tears! Then hold on to your shorts - the finale is measured and packed to the end to a breathless finish, clear and crisp to the end and all Russian all the way! This tops Horowitz!
Gilels - Dear consummate Gilels! He plays with style and class above the rest. It's militant and absolutely disciplined, yet every note oozing with Russian passion! The middle breaks my heart, it is the sorrow and pain of oppression and loneliness only a Russian understands. The ending with the taste of Gilels, absolutely perfect and I say to myself, why of course THAT'S how it should be! He is the best! You saved the best for last!
Simons is too fast . Very inaccurate. Hit around 50% of the correct notes
There exist piano roll recordings of Rachmaninoff playing this very prelude.
Richter --always understanding the architecture of the piece and performed brilliantly : Gilels my favourite and probaly closest to Rach's version with the inner voicings of th middle section
10:24 That crescendo sent shivers down my spine. Genius playing by Richter
Boringly beautiful.
Each artist had something unique to say. Each is nothing like the other. All are profound. My sentimental favorite is Horowitz. He has a lilt to his interpretations that just melts me away.
Richter, by far the best!
O yes!
Totally agree, though Moiseiwitsch is pretty close.
I’ve listened to more than twenty pianists play this. Everyone from Prokofiev on piano roll to Lang Lang. Every time someone said “This is the best!” I’d follow it down. I can’t tell you who my second favorite is. Only my favorite, and it is, oddly, completely clear and obvious. Richter. Period.
@@koshersalaami agree
Magnifique ! Que de souvenirs .........le tout dans un blindé avec 2° dehors et la neige ,et les ruines et la boue partout !!!!!
Now, this is my idea of a good time! Bravo, Moiseiwitsch! The Barere is like being beat up with fists that give great pleasure instead of pain. Wow, what a dynamic performance. The Richter was my favorite for it's clarity and loving attention to detail. I like Richter's respect for the much needed build of of the slow accelerandos into a fit of recapitulated ecstasy. Then The Gilels I thought played the rhapsodic middle section magically, although Horowitz was sensitive, as well.
Definitely Richter and Giles for the musical performance, especially on the second melodious part which they don't play too fast so that we can enjoy it, and for the last part (reprise) using a very slow tempo then increasing, as Valentina Lisitsa plays it. Splendid !
Moiseiwitsch: very deep and classical in its form. Nice discovery....
Barer: the neurotic side of Rachmaninov, breathtaking but too rushed for me (interesting, though, for comparison purposes)
Horowitz: plays this emotionally charged prelude as if it were an Etude. I cannot connect to this interpretation
Richter: what a visionary interpretation. regardless of personal preferences, this one clearly stands out.
Gilels: when Granite Man plays Rachmaninov, everything else fades. Truly exceptional !
All in all, Richter and Gilles introduce us to a new world of vertigo and sentiment. I have a clear preference for Gilels whose play is darker than Richter's - but between the two, it is really a matter of personal taste.... :o)
Thanks to Gullivior for posting this comparison. Score in hand, that is how you get to know better such an amazing prelude...
when i first heard this i could not stop listening to it its so intense no matter who plays it
Richter is the only pianist I've heard thus far who does what the music dictates. Thank you for this comparison!
Richter is peerless in Rachmaninov as this recording shows. What a pity he didn't play all of the Preludes and Etudes. Gilels comes in second - the way he builds the power of the piece from what initially sounds a bit plodding is jaw dropping. Richter is different in that he uses a wide dynamic palette. I turned the sound up at the beginning only to have to turn it down after about eight bars.
Wow, i didnt know richter also played this piece. Thank you for uploading this!
J'ai écouté avec attention tous ces grands pianistes, et celui qui retient le plus mon attention est sans hésitation Richter. Le passage à partir de 12:40 est magistral.
coincido totalmente
Oui.
Emil Gilels is my favourite.
Слушал-вслушивался в каждое исполнение. Лучше всех: музыкально-точнее посылу-нотам автора С. Рахманинова прозвучало у Святослава Рихтера, рядом, но после в целом по качеству Е. Гиллельс. И всё-таки идеально-безгрешного исполнения-звучания среди них не было: таков мой отклик-эхо. Слушатель-зритель, и только - Виктор СПб.
Richter delivers a savage performance. His big claws ravage the piano. Every time I listen to a piece by someone else I wonder what Richter would have made of it. He could also play very poetically though. I also love Gilels.
Святослав Ріхтер- геніальний піаніст!
I love both Richter and Gilels here! Richter plays it closer to how Rachmaninoff played it. I have to say as far as this particular piece I think Rachmaninoff's own recording of it is the best. I do enjoy Gilels interpretation though and Richter for his passion and authenticity.
Richter cleaned up
Sometimes I wonder if anyone ever listened to the way Rachmaninoff himself played it. There is a reason he is considered the greatest pianist ever.
indeed
They all play beautifully of course, but I love how nicely the middle voice sings in the middle section with Richter.
Thank you gullivior for posting this! What a neat idea to compare these! And how fun to see what a varied community of piano-lovers is out there! I'm hoping to play this in a master class and it's wonderfully helpful to hear these different versions. I'm writing as I listen and so far I've only heard the first two and Moiseiwitsch is wonderful. Not hugely impressed with Barere so far (so rushed!).I expect I'll love Richer as he's my favorite pianist ever. Thanks again!
Rakhmaninov wrote "All marcia" at the head of this piece. Unfortunately only Richter's and Gilels's interpretations capture this spirit. Of them, I think Richter's is superior, it is more subtle than Gilels. Gilel's does a wonderful job of bringing the inner voice out in the middle section when the theme appears for the second time, but his retransition to the spirit and tempo of the march-like outer section feels to abrupt for me and the climax prior to the E-flat major second strain is premature. Both Horowitz and Barere (and to a lesser extent Moiseiwitsch) show why Rakhmaninov marked the tempo crotchet = 108; it is not possible to play the piece accurately at tempos much faster than this (nor does it sound march like, it becomes more like a study--Moiseiwitsch is the most note accurate at the faster tempo, and also the most interesting of these three). So for me it is (on these recordings): 1 Richter, 2. Gilels, 3. Moiseiwitsch, 4. Barere, 5. Horowitz. (By the way, Richter is the ONLY one who does not inexcusably speed up in the final couple of bars).
That's my two cents worth
+Simon Perry I think horowitz captures it very well, maybe a bit more than gilels.
EDIT: I had listened to a different recording than this one of horowitz. This audio sounds distorted.
*RaChmaninov it is
+Abisal Gergiev
I can't believe I'm responding to such a trivial point, but these things irk me, so here goes. It depends how you transliterate the Cyrillic letter "х". The system I use (Library of Congress) transliterates х as "kh", so I transliterate Рахманинов as Rakhmaninov. Others are free to use whatever system they like, just don't go correcting me thinking there is only one way to spell Рахманинов using the Latin alphabet, because there isn't. You will find, Rakhmaninov, Rachmaninov, Rachmaninoff, and probably some others -- none of them are "wrong"
+Simon Perry sorry than mate!говоришь по русски?
+Abisal Gergiev
Не за что! Да, немного говорю но, могу луче читать. счастливо!
1st one and Richter were my votes. I loved the way Richter did the final few bars. Most pianists seem to throw that away but he gave it a bit of magic.
This is my all-time favourite piano piece and all the piano performers are absolute perfect, and my favourite pianist in this recording is Sviatoslav Richter, and probably recorded in 1959, is my all-time favourite of Rachmaninov`s music as well as Chopin, my favourite composer of piano music.
Absolutely agreed.
There is no one like Richter.
interesting comparison. I thought both Richter and Gilels superb in their own ways. Horowitz played the middle section with such lyrical intensity, but he sped up so much in the final section he couldn't manage to play the notes, which rather spoilt the effect. Moisevitch was the most poetic. Didn't much like Barere, not steady enough for something marked as a march tempo. Overall I'd give it to Richter.
I agree with your assessment on the relative merits, but as much as I respect Richter's interpretation, I rank Gilels' first among the versions here. I must say, however, that none of these was truly satisfying. It seems like none fully and consistently achieved the phrasing, dynamics, rubato etc called for by this truly marvelous piece. Above all, the fierce and violent struggle, the wistful yearning, the majesty and determination inherent must be conveyed. Alas, the tendency to rush, to push through where there should be a dramatic or reflective pause, to overdo the bravura, is often present. In short, don't play it like an encore piece (although it often is).
Try the version recorded by Prokofiev, if you want a truly unique perspective.
The audience applause at the end clearly reflects their agreement with me (haha) that Gilels breathed fire and thundering force and dynamic control into the bookends and heartbreak in the middle. Can you imagine a night of Gilels and Richter trading renditions of these jaw breakers for fun?!
Moiseiwitsch knew Rachmaninoff and spoke with him often on the latter's intentions on how his works should be played. He usually got the same answer the master gave everybody, to the effect of: "You should play it the way you think it should be played."
Simone Barere also knew Rachmaninoff, but he played things his way. Barere was well-known for his virtuosity but could also play very songfully when he felt like it.
Much has been written about Horowitz, who was a close friend of Rachmaninoff, and who the latter once said "plays my works better than I do" -- a high compliment, considering that Rachmaninoff had a formidable technique.
Richter is probably best-known for his flawless interpretations of how work was written, meaning that he neither added nor took away very little from the printed score. His interpretation here is surprisingly innovative.gig
Gilels was a man of many moods, and he rarely performed the same work the same way twice. I like his interpretation of this work the best of the five given; it seems the most faithful to the printed score, while still allowing for some personal interpretation. Your opinion may vary.
If you want to hear how the maestro himself played his own work, look here (put it in the search box): watch?v=F-zKWgjrOmI and here: watch?v=tl-kG4H4VrQ . Vastly different from each other.
Richter without a shred of doubt. The BEST.
knott ptyx
Non vi è un Primo e un Secondo, un Uno e un Due.
Per me conta solo che sia un Russo a calcare queste Note Sublimi!
Grande Scuola Russa.....insuperata e insuperabile!
Marco Rotondi
I’ve probably listened to more than twenty pianists play this, starting originally with this video, and I don’t know the names of the first three pianists. I’ll forget some. Lugansky. Kissin. Yuja Wang. Prokofiev on piano roll. Rachmaninoff on piano roll Josef Hofmann. Cziffra. Lisitska. Ashkenazi. Van Cliburn. Weissenberg. Moiseiwitsch. Horowitz, more than one version. Lang Lang. Scheps. Pletnev. Sokholov. De Larrocha. I’m probably missing a few. Gilels more than one version, but he’s here. And after all that, I can tell you definitively:
Richter without a shred of doubt. The BEST.
Gilels respect the most the spirit of that prelude
Richter showing what a class act he really was. The competition is comparatively weak (Moiseiwitsch was arguably the only serious performance here, and falls short in comparison), but that should take nothing away from a powerful and robust performance from Richter.
Удивительно, как по разному звучит инструмент у пианистов, не знаешь кому отдать предпочтение, мне нравится исполнение Луганского
Amazing how each player has their own style of phrasing, dynamics, and even staccato.
I like Moiseiwitch the most here. He keeps a respectful tempo, his phrasing is emotionally engaging, and his smooth transitions between different techniques are really good (no dramatic pauses to disguise inadequate playing, as Gilels does).
Very nice upload!
Disguise inadequate playing??? Gilels is a genius that was personally recognized by Rachmaninov himself...
Dude Gilels and inadequate playing?? your talking aboug a top 5 pianist of all time...Elite of the elites..
Gilels!
Magical! The main theme return is like the misty dawning of a Russian winter day
What a wonderful idea and the perfect piece in which to make such comparisons. Thanks much...
Barere played it with a spade in his left hand. Which he passed over to his right hand halfway through.
Gilels's version is the best . . .
Top 3 performances of this prelude: 1. Richter; 2. Rachmaninov; 3. Gilels.
What a bounty of artistic riches. Thanks for posting- John
Richter is awesome!
the quality of recording gives unequal conditions.
After Richter superior play was quite surprised that Gilels is even better from some point..
Benno Moiseiwitsch is my favorite, despite the disadvantage of the sound quality. Stylistically superior to the others imo, (for this particular piece).
Horowitz playing like he's late for a train lol. Not his best. But his TONE in the lyrical middle section could melt the coldest heart!
Sviatoslav Richter!
Richter got something that the others didn't
Horowitz plays with the piece as a confirmed piano player would play with fur elise
Gilels seems to greatefully conduct the music out lf his hands, the interpretation feels very mechanically pure.
A
B+
A-
What wonderful service for posting all these together! The musically worshipful will have quite a time deciding who is 'best' of all these greats!
Bowing to composer Rachmaninoff-I think ALL are happy experiences of a great piece-with fascinating differences. Having heard it live often, my only regret is we have only the old archaic sound, which often obscures the actual piano 'tone' that can be so differentiating in performances of this. Barere was famous for this, for example. Thanks!
Does Barere get mad everytime he's near a piano or what? This is absolutely madness, I like it.
lol
At least someone who is understanding what is going on with Barere .
try his Schumann toccata!
gilels was great. but boris berezovsky has the finest interpretation of this, i recommend checking it out
Johnson Pernesky agree with you Berezovsky is great, you must add him to
I find Horowitz’s performance, in spite of the wrong notes, indescribably thrilling. Technique isn’t everything, true, but his technique allows him to make more varied and controlled sounds than almost any other pianist, excepting the greats like Hofmann, Rach, Lhevinne etc. The second A section (9:07) in particular is amazing.
An incredible video! Thank you for that! Professionally they are all high up, but for me the interpretation of Richtor was great! horoits ... Haha, a great pianist and a great artist!
Richter clearly stands out!
Richter #1 IMO but all legendary pianists!
Wow! I LOVE this piece.
Все великолепны!
Richter! Only Richter!
exactly, Richter is incredible
Ashkenazy!
@@EmptyVee00000
Non, pas Ashkenazy. Je m'explique. Ashkenazy est un pianiste honnête, mais je le trouve un peu sur coté. En effet, il ne donne que peu de véritable sens à la musique, juste de l'effet. Il y a des pianistes qui allient les deux parfaitement ( Pogorelich, Michelangeli, Backhaus etc... ). Dans les pianistes modernes les versions de Virsalazze, Sokolov ou d'autres sont plus intéressantes. Après ce n'est que mon avis.
Guilhem Chameyrat Moi, je préfère les pianistes qui portent l’écouteur au delà du pianisme artisanal; Sokolov, Michelangeli, et Pogorelich n’avaient/n’ont pas cette qualité, malgré leur pianisme stratosphérique. Ashkenazy, Gilels, Lupu, Richter, sì.
@@EmptyVee00000
D'accord pour Gilels, Lupu, Richter : ce sont des pianistes qui sont universels, à l'image de Yudina, Sofronitsky, Schnabel ou Serkin. Ashkenazy est loin d'être un mauvais pianiste, je suis obligé de le reconnaître, mais je trouve qu'il n'y a pas assez de réflexion dans son travail, voilà tout.
Horowitz! Come on! Even 8 year olds should know: don't play it faster than you can! Gilels is the best.
Horowitz plays it like an encore, which is how I understand it was intended to serve; an encore to fill out the tenth side of a 78RPM recording of the 1930 premiere recording of the same composer's third concerto. In that context, I find it less objectionable.
The perfect realization of this piece was recorded by György Cziffra.
Benno was a power machine with a good feeling too. It's hard to select just one performer and state the "favorite" for me because I can recognize strengths in each one. I love the overall interpretation and clarity especially the first section for Horowitz, although I've heard other recordings and like them much better. The middle lyrical section was beautifully "sung" but the last part for me was too fast to enjoy. I agree with a previous poster Marere is absolute madness...that was the fastest I heard. Richter did a nice job showcasing the first section by doing it slower but I think lacked the true grit it needs. I enjoyed the capricious entry with Gilels. I don't have a favorite with these recordings, but if forced, I might select Gilels. His balance and imperfection with the middle part won me over especially with the delightful voicing.
Moiseiwitch: Intimate, elegant, but not at his best.
Barere: WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
Horowitz: Manic, passionate, not particularly comprehending, but who cares, you immediately understand why he's Horowitz.
Richter: The century's greatest and you hear why here. Every bar gives you the reason why Rachmaninov wrote those notes.
Gilels: More traditionally romantic and virtuoso, almost too much so, like it's a pose for him. Still, what a pianist.
My favorite is Benno...by a hair over Gilels...
And to the right we can check Hofmann and the composer himself! A great place to be...
¡Qué cinco pianistas! Excelente selección
Richter sans contestation possible . Quelle profondeur !
richter or gilels: that is the question
Richter or Gilels? Glorious both. And the rest is up to a personal taste. As simple as that. Thank God they are different!
Ashkenazy.
Rachmaninov...But really,Richter and Gilels got it.
Ferenc Hackfelner Ashkenazy and Rachmaninoff.
Mega Upstairs Richter plays a much more beautiful middle section, but Gilels’ march is more exciting. Ashkenazy‘s is still the best.
Richter is just so superior. He is the King. But I really also admire Gilels for his amazing power. Like the bar fighter of pianists. And also really lyrical. Amazing pianists both.
Richter tops, his power and technique superb. Gilels had some note issues in the B part, otherwise excellent.
Richter it is....!!!!
They’re all my favorite!
Moiseiwitch was the most poetic lol that my great uncle.
oh, your related to him!!! WWWWWOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
Indeed He sounds very good! I didn't recognise him and wondered: Who's playing? because was impressive!!!
I like his version a lot.
I love that pianist! Very hard to find recordings. Such elegant technique. No technical hurdles, you’re listening to pure music.
In my opinion, I think Benno and has crazy accuracy, it is so underrated in this millenial generation, It actually sounds ten times better than this generation.
Sviatoslov is very muisical but somehow incredibly incredibly accurate, that articulation and detail give it that edge crazy!!!
Richter and Gilels
Clean style I see
Richter!!!!
Yeah! The tempo and dynamic is just right!
Richter owns this piece.
Horowitz plays really, really weird. He keeps going forward and forward without a reason, and the tempo gets really blurry (and lots of wrong notes). BUT the middle part was absolutely amazing
Everyone has is favourite, but Horowitz’s interpretetion for sure was the one more “authentic” and similar to the original, played by Rachmaninoff because the two were good friends and surely Horowitz knew much well how this piece should’ve sounded
Rahmaninov played the best version
Absolutely!
Moiseiwitsch`s interpretation is as good as it gets! Such a pity that it is on a really old and scratchy tape.
Barere is as crazy as his usual mood(in a good way).
Horowitz is just as crazy as Barere here. However I`ve heard much more proper versions of him.
Richter is simply perfect. His interpretation is beyond any imagination. And his technique is beyond any comparison. What a clarity!
I sure can say the same stuff towards Gilels too. But something sounded just a pinch more perfect at the middle section which makes him my favourite. But there is a slight difference between them so why don`t we call both winners :)
+Kerem Uzonur I agree. Gilels is more brutal. And for that I admire him also. But Richter is simply beyond at moments.
Barere rushes everything. He's like a white guy trying to rap, or something like that. Horowitz goes for the widest swings in tempo and dynamics, pushes the tempo too much, is sloppy, and sounds a little inscrutable. Richter sound just about perfect (nothing is rushed, few missed notes), the most percussive and dramatic, and a rich timbre; he also makes the most of the silent places for the most dramatic effect. Gilels' interpretation is as good as Richter's, but different. I'm glad there are recordings of all these fine players. Moiseiwitsch is the most surprising to me. It sounds like he isn't trying.
If you are not ABLE to listen to Barere , do not critisize .... ask yourself upon some invalidity .
mumble rapper?
Richter!
much power in Gilels's performance but the middle section is very expressive
Kissin plays this very well.
lol
99hoolio I think he does get to wipe all the asses with a piece of clothe using his lightnin hands except for RICHTER.
Que gran artista fue Richter!!
tu vieja