[/caption]Like many other pianists that saw "Shine" when they were teens, I've had a thing for the third Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto for a long time. It's one of those scores that I've had around and occasionally read through, going from the "holy crap, this is impossible" phase to the "well, it's playable" over the years. It's now time for me to pick it up seriously and actually see it through to the very end with an orchestra.
There are a couple of decisions one has to make with this concerto. Cuts or no cuts? Long cadenza or short cadenza? I'm not going to bore you with all the details. If there is one work for piano that is ever-present on the Internet, it's this one. Do a Google search for "Rach 3" and you will get almost three and a half million results. Guys writing on their Myspace pages about how awesome it is and how much they want to play it, people who collect all available recordings of the concerto and compare them, hundreds of videos on YouTube of amateur pianists playing the opening theme and even more videos of students butchering the cadenzas (usually the big ossia cadenza). People all over the net, most of which probably have never played the concerto (and probably never will) debating about how the short cadenza is for wimps or the long cadenza is overblown and against Rachmaninoff's wishes.
Did he record it the way he did because of time issues? Because he was bored with it? (He recorded it 30 years after he first debuted the concerto). I honestly think that his recording of the concerto and his own recordings of his other works tell us as much about the interpretation of this work as the score itself. It seems his interpretation of his own music is so different from what has become popular and accepted these days that pianists are a bit disappointed, and want to justify what he did; they want to give excuses for him.
I love the Van Cliburn and the Volodos versions too, though. I believe that they choose the cadenza that best suits their pianism and their big sound and long lines. The reasons I like these recordings are more about their intensity and power and not so much about the concerto in itself. In my case, I feel I would have a harder time with the short cadenza. Big chords and octaves are easier for me than quick light playing. Even so, I feel that the short cadenza makes more sense within the context of the concerto, and is the one that Rachmaninoff himself would have included if he had published another edition of the concerto. It is also played in some of the versions that make more musical sense to me, like the Horowitz/Ormandy, Jorge Bolet and Rachmaninoff recordings.
The one thing I do not want to do, is grab the ossia cadenza because it makes me look better. It would lead me to a fundamental question about why I am playing the concerto. Am I playing it because it is famous for being hard? Is it about showing off? Am I doing it because I love the music? With the Rach 3, I have to scrutinize very closely the reasons behind everything I do. I have heard way too many versions where the musical lines are fragmented and things are played faster, louder than necessary or completely blown out of proportion to make it more impressive than it already is. It is a question of musical integrity; when I play this for an audience, I should be playing a piece of music I love and transmitting Rachmaninoff's musical ideas and emotions by being as faithful as I can to the spirit behind the notes. On the other hand, I could go out and show off, play to make myself feel good and important.
Perhaps there is a little of both. There is a place in music for fireworks, excitement and a little circus; it's just a question of finding the right place for them.
Even Horowitz went crazy and recorded the fast and wild Barbirolli version. It is obvious that they are having a lot of fun. The short cadenza there sure doesn't sound wimpy:
No comments:
Post a Comment