|  | | | Customer Reviews: | | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
7 of 7 found the following review helpful:
 Classic performance, but.... May 09, 2007
I ordered this used through Amazon. It never showed up (and was never charged, either). This, however, is an anomaly in my experience with the Amazon partners used department.
I ordered it for the Rach 3 (as they called it in "Shine"). I learned that piece from this recording when it was released on LP back in 1959 or so. For me it is still the preferred recording. There is a lot of enthusiasm for the Argerich (which I own), but hers is a distorted romp in my opinion. In places it is so fast that Chailly can't keep the orchestra together with her and the ensemble is horrible.
Cliburn/Kondrashin is a classy pair. I wanted this version for the quality of the SACD recording. I have had wonderful experience with these SACD reprocessings of the classic Living Stereo recordings. This recording, however, was always a bit of a problem from a technical standpoint because it was recorded live and always seemed muted in the string department.
But of the six versions I have owned, this is still the one I prefer.
PS: I did not live in Texas at the time and this is not chauvinism for a native son.
2 of 2 found the following review helpful:
Triumph and Tragedy Apr 24, 2007
I do not own this recording on cd and although I own the recording of the Rachmaninoff piano concerto no. 3 on vinyl, a 70's reissue on RCA's .5 half speed remaster series, I do not own a copy the recording of the Prokofiev no.3, therefore my comments wil be limited to the Rachmaninoff.
I have a few thoughts which I believe will provide some important perspective on the quality of the performance and recording. Upon obtaining the consent of Van Cliburn to allow their equipment to be brought into Carnegie Hall and a recording to be made, RCA's engineers had less than two days to set up and make all the preparations to record the concert. Van Cliburn had just returned to the U.S. two days prior to the concert after winning the first international Tchaikovsky competition in the Soviet Union and the subsequent hectic whirlwind and probably exhausting tour through that nation. He was probably not thoroughly rested at the concert. He and the conductor Kiril Kondrashin most definitely did not have the amount of rehersal time with the orchestra they would ideally have wanted.
As a result there are a number of problems with this record, mainly with the sound quality which is substandard even for 1958. In fact I believe 90% of the perceived problems can be blamed on the sound engineering. Another 5 or 6% can be blamed on the very occasional technical flaws in Mr. Cliburns playing. The remaing 4 or 5% to my ears sound like problems with the piano itself.
Given the above facts, to put it in slang terms, this recording, especially the performance itself, is a freaking miracle. It is simply amazing. As I said Van Cliburn's technical errors are few and far between and the vast majority of the apparent harshness in the piano in some passages is obviously soundwave distortion. I perceive only two places where there are significant problems with his playing which are toward the end of the long first movement cadenza where his timing and touch seem to break down momentarliy from which he quickly recovers. The other is the passage of hard descending chords leading up to the final two minutes of the piece which get a bit sloppy although he takes them at possibly the fastest tempo ever recorded and with such fire and passion I don't think that there is a pianist that has lived that could play them perfectly. I was almost shocked the first time I heard them.
As to how this performance was conceived, it seems to me to be an absolute work of genius. It strikes me as being the perfect balance between the stately, lyrical approach of some pianists and the passionate fireworks of others. The first movement seems to be dominated by the first approach in which Mr. Cliburn fittingly uses the longer of the two cadenzas of the composer, although the issue of which one a performer uses is not a huge one to me. The second movement is relaxed yet moderately paced. All the stops are pulled out for the final movement
of which the overall timing is on the fast side but if nothing else, particularly in his youth,Van Cliburn had the knack for building to a climax so this is not just a race to the finish. In fact, throughout the piece he builds to dramatic high points with excellent phrasing and then levels off or backs off nicely to keep just enough tension.
It is remarkable that such a performance could come from a mind so young as Van Cliburn was at the time and probably running on adreniline and nervous energy, caught up in the thrill of the moment. This performance was a triumph, as can also be judged by the reaction of the crowd at the end who had obviously just heard greatness. This makes the technical flaws in the sound something of a tragedy. But we should be thankful that it was recorded at all and I suppose we can just sit back and imagine what it must have sounded like to those who were there.
7 of 10 found the following review helpful:
Solid but boring Apr 22, 2007
For a Russian-trained pianist who made his name playing Russian music in Russia, Cliburn doesn't play these two wonderful staples of the Russian repertoire with much fire or conviction. The tempo of the Prokofiev is so slow that the most motoric parts of this very exciting work fall completely flat. There is no intensity, no suspense, and no excitement - just a lot of nice-sounding notes with a rounded tone. Faster tempi and a little Prokofievian edginess would have gone a long way, because the playing is as solid as a rock and the collaboration is absolutely first-rate.
The Rachmaninov is also thin. In fact, it sounds more like a small chamber work than a concerto. The orchestra sounds puny, and the pianist is meek. Everyone sounds tired, like they could fall asleep at any second - obviously, this is not an effective way to keep an audience's attention. Check out any of Richter's recordings of Rachmaninov 2, or even Rachmaninov's own, and what you'll hear is a languor born not out of laziness and detachment, but out of concentration and commitment to carrying the music's message.
6 of 19 found the following review helpful:
 How to destroy a piano Sep 09, 2006
The Rach 3 has been my favorite piano concerto since the first time I heard it. (I own 7 different recordings.) I am a pianist myself and have taught piano for decades. The only interpretation I do not like is the one played by Cliburn. I don't know what happened to him between the time he won the Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow and the present. He played the Tchaikovsky beautifully, but to my mind, never played as well again. I use his recording to illustrate to my students what really awful playing sounds like. To quote a critic from the Seattle Post Intelligencer (years ago), "He played as if he were trying to destroy the instrument." There is no tenderness, no sensitivity, no quality of tone. I just plain didn't like it.
8 of 8 found the following review helpful:
A benchmark recording. Mar 19, 2006
I've owned this recording in various incarnations for 30 years, and it still represents a benchmark performance. Too bad Cliburn burned out so quickly at the keyboard (although he of course still champions young pianists through his Cliburn Competition in Ft. Worth). But fresh from his early Russian triumph, Cliburn and this recording rode a crest of poularity that was at the time very well deserved. As a live document, it is remarkable both for the consistency of the playing, the excitement of the major passages, and the overall sound. I haven't picked up this "hybrid" version yet, although I intend to. Actually, the original CD still sounds fine to me! Having just revisited the recording tonight, I've found that in the process of collecting a dozen different performances of the Rach Third, my tastes may have changed a bit or at least broadened over the years. As good as the Cliburn is, I find that I have come to prefer in their own way the 30's Horowitz version with Coates, as well as the Horowitz/ Reiner from the fifties, and the composer's own reading. I also very much like the versions by Ashkenazy and Tzimon Barto. As a bonus, you have on this disc a rather wild version of Prokofiev Third (I prefer Barto's and the composer's fleeting versions, but this one is still very good). But no matter what direction you go with as a collector of the Rach Third Concerto (and everyone should have several recordings), the Cliburn/Kondrashin really must be one of them.
|
| | |
![Rachmaninoff: Piano concerto No. 3; Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No. 3 [Hybrid SACD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61H5GMG7Q6L._SL160_.jpg "Rachmaninoff: Piano concerto No. 3; Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No. 3 [Hybrid SACD]")
