Sergei Rachmaninov (1873-1943)

[Roasted Swan]

Now, I want to revisit Rachmaninov's 1st! To be fair, I haven't listened to this symphony in ages or so it seems.

Now I just need to figure out what performance of it I want to listen to: Rozhdestvensky, Ashkenazy, Ormandy, Svetlanov or Previn.

Avoid Previn - I love nearly everything he ever recorded but his LSO/Rach 1 must go down as just about his most disappointing recording.  Disappointing because you'd think it was the sort of work he would absolutely nail (and his Nos.2&3 are very good as well).  For me Ashkenazy & Svetlanov are the classic versions.  The only Rozhdestvensky version I know is;



which is classic Slavic gloom but live and not a great technical recording.  Is there another studio version by him?

A couple of less 'popular' versions are;



The Kocsis is very unexpected - a live concert and him conducting but it has real bite and is very well played.

I see John Wilson has just released a new version with his Sinfonia of London but I'm avoiding that as I'm sure it'll be super slick and fast and "impressive" but without a fraction of the emotional power of any of the versions I've mentioned above

[vandermolen]

Avoid Previn - I love nearly everything he ever recorded but his LSO/Rach 1 must go down as just about his most disappointing recording.  Disappointing because you'd think it was the sort of work he would absolutely nail (and his Nos.2&3 are very good as well).  For me Ashkenazy & Svetlanov are the classic versions.  The only Rozhdestvensky version I know is;



which is classic Slavic gloom but live and not a great technical recording.  Is there another studio version by him?

A couple of less 'popular' versions are;



The Kocsis is very unexpected - a live concert and him conducting but it has real bite and is very well played.

I see John Wilson has just released a new version with his Sinfonia of London but I'm avoiding that as I'm sure it'll be super slick and fast and "impressive" but without a fraction of the emotional power of any of the versions I've mentioned above

There's a lot of hype about John Wilson but I have been underwhelmed by the recordings I have heard. I much prefer Previn's version of the Korngold Symphony and Rachmaninov's 3rd Symphony for example. I liked Slatkin's old recording of Rachmaninov's 1st Symphony + Ashkenazy.

[Florestan]

Avoid Previn - I love nearly everything he ever recorded but his LSO/Rach 1 must go down as just about his most disappointing recording.  Disappointing because you'd think it was the sort of work he would absolutely nail (and his Nos.2&3 are very good as well). 

I concur, avoid Previn like plague. It's dull, lifeless, boring --- probably the closest we'll ever get to actually hearing what Glazunov did with it at the premiere. 

[Cato]

Now, I want to revisit Rachmaninov's 1st! To be fair, I haven't listened to this symphony in ages or so it seems.

Now I just need to figure out what performance of it I want to listen to: Rozhdestvensky, Ashkenazy, Ormandy, Svetlanov or Previn.

I would say Ashkenazy first, then try the others!   

[LKB]

I would say Ashkenazy first, then try the others!   

+1...

Decades ago, I used to use the final coda in Ashkenazy's recording to impress visitors unfamiliar with the piece or, for that matter, with orchestral music in general. At least a couple of jaws found the floor...

[Madiel]

I mean somehow Rachmaninov is Ashkenazy's best composer. Whether as pianist or as conductor, you don't often see such a consistent level of praise.

[Der lächelnde Schatten]

I mean somehow Rachmaninov is Ashkenazy's best composer. Whether as pianist or as conductor, you don't often see such a consistent level of praise.

I generally like Ashkenazy's conducting. I found his Sibelius cycle on Decca, for example, to be excellent.

[Der lächelnde Schatten]

Avoid Previn - I love nearly everything he ever recorded but his LSO/Rach 1 must go down as just about his most disappointing recording.  Disappointing because you'd think it was the sort of work he would absolutely nail (and his Nos.2&3 are very good as well).  For me Ashkenazy & Svetlanov are the classic versions.  The only Rozhdestvensky version I know is;



which is classic Slavic gloom but live and not a great technical recording.  Is there another studio version by him?

A couple of less 'popular' versions are;



The Kocsis is very unexpected - a live concert and him conducting but it has real bite and is very well played.

I see John Wilson has just released a new version with his Sinfonia of London but I'm avoiding that as I'm sure it'll be super slick and fast and "impressive" but without a fraction of the emotional power of any of the versions I've mentioned above

There's a lot of hype about John Wilson but I have been underwhelmed by the recordings I have heard. I much prefer Previn's version of the Korngold Symphony and Rachmaninov's 3rd Symphony for example. I liked Slatkin's old recording of Rachmaninov's 1st Symphony + Ashkenazy.

I concur, avoid Previn like plague. It's dull, lifeless, boring --- probably the closest we'll ever get to actually hearing what Glazunov did with it at the premiere. 

I would say Ashkenazy first, then try the others!   

+1...

Decades ago, I used to use the final coda in Ashkenazy's recording to impress visitors unfamiliar with the piece or, for that matter, with orchestral music in general. At least a couple of jaws found the floor...

Thanks for the feedback, gents.

@Roasted Swan the recording of Rozhdestvensky's performance of the 1st that I own is found in this Melodiya set I bought whenever it came out:



I'm not sure whether it is live or studio, but I'll have to dig out the box set and let you know.

[Madiel]

I generally like Ashkenazy's conducting. I found his Sibelius cycle on Decca, for example, to be excellent.

Oh yes, that's the Sibelius cycle that I own and I like it a lot. In fact I've seen at least a couple of Sibelius surveys that end up saying "hang on a minute... this is good stuff". For one thing, he gets the brass to really blaze.

[Lisztianwagner]

I would say Ashkenazy first, then try the others! 

+1...

Decades ago, I used to use the final coda in Ashkenazy's recording to impress visitors unfamiliar with the piece or, for that matter, with orchestral music in general. At least a couple of jaws found the floor...

I mean somehow Rachmaninov is Ashkenazy's best composer. Whether as pianist or as conductor, you don't often see such a consistent level of praise.

I completely agree, when it comes to Rachmaninov, there's no better interpreter than Ashkenazy.

[Der lächelnde Schatten]

Oh yes, that's the Sibelius cycle that I own and I like it a lot. In fact I've seen at least a couple of Sibelius surveys that end up saying "hang on a minute... this is good stuff". For one thing, he gets the brass to really blaze.

Absolutely. Nice to know you're a fan of this Sibelius cycle, too! I might have to revisit it at some point.

[Der lächelnde Schatten]

@Roasted Swan I'm listening to the Rozhdestvensky recording from the box set I posted about and it's with the USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony Orchestra and not a live recording. So a completely different performance than the recording you posted earlier.

Oh and this recording sounds bloody FANTASTIC! Worth looking into for sure.

[Roasted Swan]

@Roasted Swan I'm listening to the Rozhdestvensky recording from the box set I posted about and it's with the USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony Orchestra and not a live recording. So a completely different performance than the recording you posted earlier.

Oh and this recording sounds bloody FANTASTIC! Worth looking into for sure.

Oooh er I'll have to try and track that down - Rozhdestvensky was such a fine conductor both live and in the studio.

[Der lächelnde Schatten]

Oooh er I'll have to try and track that down - Rozhdestvensky was such a fine conductor both live and in the studio.

Yeah, I'm not sure where you will find it, but I'll do some digging and see if it's even available as separate CD issue.

[Symphonic Addict]

Rachmaninov is not particularly remembered for his operas. I dare to say that many listeners don't even know he wrote some, namely four: Aleko, The Miserly Knight, Francesca da Rimini and Monna Vanna (left unfinished).

I was prompted to revisit Francesca da Rimini today. Why this and the other operas are not better known is beyond me, but what I can say is that this music is thoroughly splendid, opulent and rich in haunting atmospheres. The music of the prologue itself already displays some riveting ideas, for example, the passage of the wordless chorus depicting the damned souls of the second circle of the Inferno. What a fantastic effect it provides. The best of all is the duration, almost an hour long (so are the first two operas on this DG recording), perfect to listen to in one sitting. If that were not enough, the interpretation is up to the expectations, wonderfully done all around. Self-recommending.

[Roasted Swan]

A last pre-Christmas charity shop purchase (50 of your finest pennies) was this;



This is a 1984 early digital (slightly harsh and 'glassy') recording with the Moscow PO - all blaring brass and slashing string playing.  Not to be confused at all with Kitajenko's much more well-mannered and sober version by the Gurzenich-Orchester Koln on Oehms.  Outer movements are a good 2 minutes quicker in Moscow and the performance is - to my ears - much to be preferred.  Latterly Kitajenko seems to to have favoured grander broader more epic tempi and this impacts his Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky cycles in Cologne too.  There is much to enjoy in this approach and the playing/recording is very good but I do LOVE this old Soviet-style fire and brimstone playing.  Everything seems to be teetering on the edge of technical and emotional collapse.