ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มี.ค. 2020
- Lisitsa interprets this piece the best in my opinion. Perfect tempo and dynamics. Shame that all the movements had to be divided and the 2nd movement was almost impossible to find on TH-cam. This is a combination of all.
- เพลง
Out of all the interpretations I have heard beside rachmaninov's own, I think I like Valentina's the most.
Valentina's rendition of this classic has to be one of the best interpretations. She is so passionate and dedicated to this masterpiece. She performs as though she was born with this concerto in her DNA. Absolutely love it. Valentina is sublime.
Completely different Rachmaninoff than what I am accustomed to hearing, then it slowly dawned on me that Valentina knows him inside and out. The runs around 19:00 raised goosebumps. I really appreciate her version, one of the best I have heard.
I love the way Valentina plays...full of Rus charm bravado and passion...
Гений Рахманинова и гениальное исполнение Валентины Лисицы завораживает и волнует душу. Спасибо.
38:35 my God….. after all this intense climbing, that diminished chord sounds like it’s out of this world, just like in the 2nd concerto finale - as if he’s taking us outside the edge of the universe….. absolutely breathtaking…
I Think that never have been a pianist like VALENTINA! She's So, Extremely TALENTED (And Beautiful too)! I Love her. La Divina Valentina!!!
the three dislikes are her pianos
jeje! That's TRUE!!!
Valentina is the best. Awesome.
Lisitsa's interpretation of the cadenza ossia is the only one that does it for me. So haunting yet so magical
Now I understand, there's only One GODDESS!!!
This stunning performance should have won the Gramophone Award when it first came out.
The finale (when it becomes D Major) of the third movement has such a wonderful tempo. It's honestly one of the best I've heard. That coordination between the piano, timpanist and trumpet(? correct me pls if I'm wrong) has a forward-thrusting tempo...likening it to leading a cavalry charge and you're one of those horsemen in the brigade who has no choice but to be brave. The first part of the finale makes you feel like you're going supersonic (the piano + timpani part), breaking the sound barrier multiple times (37:53). The tempo makes great sense! And, all of these make the sound gigantic. It's really the finale that gets me.
Very beautiful I love it. Thx
Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No. 3 in D Minor
Movement I. Allegro ma non tanto - 0:01 (Cadenza - 9:40)
Movement II. Intermezzo. Adagio - 15:30
Movement III. Finale. Alla breve - 25:55
37:24-39:20 is one of the greatest moments in the history of music. Well, 0:00-39:20 is, but you get my meaning.
Totally agree!!!
And about 9:30 the stunning ossia cadenza!
this is how rach would play himself
Sublime
Valentina, la grande Romantique que vous êtes (Liszt, Chopin, Schumann, Schubert) vous donnez le meilleur de vous-même dans Rachmaninoff. J'ai tellement aimé la Rhapsodie sur un thème de Paganini,que vous jouez avez joué avec sensibilité et délicatesse,que j'attends l'intégrale des Concertos en CD,est-ce prévu ? J'avoue connaître bien des versions du 3e. Concerto, mais en dehors du légendaire concert de Vladimir Horowitz Mehta de 1978, vous êtes la seule qui dégage autant d'émotions...Merci Valentina
Ossia 9:38 aproximadamente. And from 35:05 till end I Love it!
tres interessante interpretation de VALENTINA mais aussi de MICKAEL FRANCIS, en entends beaucoup de belles choses comme des accents ,armonies et autres couelurs ,mise en valeur qu RACHMANINOFF a voulu exprimer , mais qu on entends pas forcement dans d autre versions , belles aussi bien sur, bravo VALENTINA ET A LORCHESTRE DE MICKAEL FRANCIS
Is there a way to delay the end of 2nd mvt and the beginning of 3rd mvt just a little bit please ?
After played the 24 studies of Chopin for one pianist it's
easy to play Rachmaninov.
CHOPIN OR RACHMANINOFF? BOTH ARE AN ENORMOUS CHALLENGE TO PLAY. THEY EACH HAVE THEIR DIFFICULTIES.
9:39
She made this piece sound quite an epic warhorse of a concerto. Her architectural understanding is right on, technique formidable as always, but while strong she lacks a warm lyricism. Nevertheless, it is a very credible recording, among the top 5 interpretation for me.
some parts a bit too hurried fast tempo... i get this is her interpretation, but certain areas compositional beauty itself tells the best tempo
Her performance brilliant. The orchestra, completely disinterested. Pity.
You 'r the Best my Lady, but this is to fast, really!
Ashkenazy/LSO Previn is the gold standard. Lisitsa's approach lacks passion and musical intensity; very lightweight, but she can certainly play the instrument.
Your unconditional admiration for Vladimir Ashkenazy blinds you. Valentina Lisitsa plays this concerto magnificently with passion, musical intensity and in addition with the tempos desired by Rachmaninoff particularly in the ossia cadenza.
Concerning the gold standard version, I think that Ashkenazy/Fistoulari is far better than Ashkenazy/Previn, and also that Horowitz, Gilels, Janis, Berman, Gavrilov, Argerich, Lugansky, Volodos, Bronfman, Wang and some others, like Lisitsa, have made highly recommended versions which can claim to be gold standard.
rigel48 Gilels, Volodos, and Wang are certainly worth considering, and there is Peter Donohoe's excellent performance from the Tchaikovsky Competition. The others, despite being pianistically top level, except Horowitz, leave too much to be desired, musically speaking. It seems that many people have lost their souls, and just go for the fireworks and glitter; the substance of the music is left by the wayside, and it is very saddening. Music has to be alive when performed, and not just be a well-calculated series of notes. Having said that, Lisitsa's cadenza is incoherent and has too many splits, and it is so fast there is no time to hear the incredible chord colors of Rachmaninoff's incredibly rich harmonies. No, skating over it like an ice-hockey playing tractor does not work for me. I would rather hear Bronfman's solid, plodding, every chord there interpretation than Argerich's or Lisitsa's "I can get there faster than anyone else" madness. Even Wang, who can outplay pretty much all them in terms of accuracy, speed, and clarity, actually goes for the music, not the glitter. Each to his own, in the end.
@@EmptyVee00000 "Musically speaking" is a very subjective matter, and you dismiss versions that I find just as lively and full of passion as those on the short list you retain. If there is a gold standard version, it should be the one made by Rachmaninoff himself. And this version is brisk and unsentimental. Rachmaninoff wrote this concerto in Russia to show his own talents as a composer but also as a pianist for the american public and he premiered it in New York. So I do not think it has to be melancholic and depressed as if the composer was already an exile sadly regretting his country (as Ashkenazy).
@@EmptyVee00000 There are pianists who, by playing fast, like Argerich, bring as much expression and musical intensity as others with slower tempos and who are banal or blatantly boring.
I find it a caricature to say that Lisitsa and Argerich are playing madly as fast as possible. Listen to Zoltán Kocsis for this. It is not because Lisitsa and Argerich have phenomenal pianistic technique that they are devoid of musicality.
As for the cadenza, I much prefer the short cadenza which fits much better into the concerto. The long cadenza is practically impossible to render musically. Either you respect the Allegro molto tempo, as Lisitsa does, and it becomes frenetic and breathless, or you play it more slowly, with grandeur like Ashkenazy, but it becomes laborious with this succession of chords which drag themselves painfully. This is undoubtedly why Rachmaninoff subsequently composed, and played, the short cadenza.
@@rigel48 Remember that Rachmaninoff was always very insecure about his own compositions; he diced up his Op.36 Sonata, cut out some of the Corelli variations when performing them (thought the audience was "bored"), and played his concertos without passion (perhaps it would have been too difficult to bare his soul to that extent, so he held back). The shorter cadenza was part of the same state of mind of pulling back.
Why does she play everything so fast? It's all too fast. Rushed. Really detracts from the deep musicality and drama of the score. Check out Alicia de Larrocha's recording for the ultimate performance of this piece.
totally! this woman and another so-called pianist named rachmaninoff have butchered this fine composition with their recording. Don't they know about the formula: slower tempo = better expression that are favored by many amateur classical listener? how inconsiderate for both of them.
Quốc Bảo Nguyễn lol
Id. My reference Lazar Berman.
That comment is rather narrow. It's quite funny because Rachmaninov himself plays this Concerto even faster. Are u claiming the composer himself is playing his own piece wrong now?
Concertos, especially this one, were written by the composers for big public audiences to show off a soloist's talents, often the composers own. It was like that for Mozart and Beethoven, Bartok and Rachmaninoff. And it was a way to make a name and $$. As such, they're usually full of great melodies and dazzling virtuosity. That's not to say the music isn't profound, but the first goal was to wow an audience of "average" music lovers. Generally, their deeper musical and philosophical ideas were in their chamber music, which was usually performed by and for connoisseurs. Compare Bartok's 3rd concerto to his 3rd string quartet and you'll get the idea within seconds. Basically, they wrote for more sophisticated audiences in their smaller works, and it's where they experimented more with musical ideas. But Iike concertos A LOT, because they're more like big red cabernets instead of fussy chardonnays. Or to make a literary analogy, I'd rather read Steinbeck than Faulkner. But to get back to the point, fast is exciting and totally in keeping with the composer's intentions. Most of the great composers were great soloists. It's how they made most of their money. And concertos were their vehicle to shine. But they were talented enough to make great and beautiful music at the same time. Nothing but fast and difficult gets really boring. You need contrasting moods. The audience wants to be moved as well as wowed. Anyway, I sound like a pompous ass, but I think my take on this is sound.