If you don't already have the complete Rachmaninov concertos, you can buy this version with total confidence. There may be better recordings of the individual works (such as the legendary Michelangeli in No. 4 or Argerich in No. 3) but this remains the finest complete recording, unrivalled since it was made in the early 1970s. Only the boxy sound (in itself not bad enough to lessen the recommendation) and the tuning of the piano in the first movement of the First Concerto counts against it. Vladimir Ashkenazy is one of Rachmaninov's most sympathetic interpreters, both as pianist and latterly as conductor. He never ladles on the sugar in the way some interpreters do and the music sounds all the greater for it. Previn is a superb ally, and his relationship with the LSO was one of the most distinguished in the orchestra's history. The highlights are too numerous to number: by far the best thing is to buy it and hear it for yourself. --Harriet Smith

Customer Rating:
Summary: Reality check
Comment: No question that Ashkenazy, Argerich, & Michelangeli are geat pianists and that their Rach recordings are among the best. But two interpreters are so outstanding that their recordings are...what can one say...transcendent ?

The recordings by Rachmaninov himself are benchmarks and beyond reproach. Unfortunately he lived at a time when recording technology was primitive, although modern restoration specialists have made a wonderful job of bringing his recordings to life on the Naxos Historical label. If one cannot put up with the shortcomings of restored mechanical/electric recording technology, then the next best option is Horowitz, on whom Rachmaninov himself had conferred his blessing. But the technical quality of the Horowitz recordings falls short of what we expect today. What to do?

There is a great modern pianist who plays the Rachmaninov concertos and the Paganini Variations with all the technical brilliance and interpretive skill of the composer himself, to my mind superior to all the well-known pianists named so far. In many places he has forsworn flashy displays of technique to revert strictly to Rachmaninov's score, especially with respect to tempi. He has been well served with a first-rate modern recording - Stephen Hough, with the Dallas Symphony under Andrew Litton. You will not be disappointed.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: The best collection of the 4concertos
Comment: Although it is possible that some prefer the playing of Michelangi for these recordings, i believe they are being short-sighted. On this record Ashkenazy demonstrates his Russian training and interpretation, thus getting much closer to the style that befits Rachmaninov! I recommend this album strongly if you strive to hear these well known concertos in the Russian style they were composed! But if you strive for a western style of interpretation then don't buy this! Ashkenazy performs all of the four concertos with his typicall musicalaty that never fails to provoke thought, but his performane of the 2nd deserves special mention! And not forgetting the fine LSO playing throughout, admirally conducted By Andre Previn!

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Fantastic
Comment: The title says it all, this CD is absolutely fantastic! Ashkenazy is a great pianist and Rachmaninov a wonderful composter. These 2 people combined into 1 CD is a must-have CD! Although I can also recommend Horowitz for this CD. Just buy it and you'll see this is a great CD.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Drama within melodrama
Comment: Yet again I see that some of the reviewers on this page are lamenting the lack of 'drama' or 'passion' which comes with players who push their performance to the upper limits at the expense of technical clarity.

One has cited Martha Argerich's superlative recording of the 3rd concerto and Michaelangeli's 4th: both brilliant pianists, both excellent interpretations, both legendary intellects. Yet, not Russian. Argerich was trained in South America, and Michaelangeli claims to be self-taught (although most probably Italian-based).

However Ashkenazy hails from the Russian school where an emphasis upon technical precision is paramount, emotional interpretation all-pervading. Just listen to Richter's similarly note-perfect interpretation on Deutsche Grammophon, or Kissin's on Red Seal. What about Glemser, Ousset, Thibaudet (with Ashkenazy conducting, I might add)? All of these recordings are without pianistic errors, and yet manage to top the summit of Rachmaninov interpretations.

Ashkenazy has had the unfortunate label of 'one who tried to chase too many rabbits' - that is, he recorded too much repertoire too fast and without giving himself time to properly settle with the music. This is partially true. But then again, who can blame him for it? A young man, freshly defected from the USSR to the West, humble, technically brilliant, emotionally also, and a lovely character to match: he was signed up by Decca almost instantly, and, after the smash hit that was his first recording with Perlman of the Franck Violin Sonata, set about his attack upon almost the entire piano repertoire (with the major exceptions of Bach, Haydn, Grieg, and a few others).

Seen by many (myself also) as the Rachmaninov interpreter 'ne plus ultra', what these reviewers have to bear in mind is: could any of us do as well? Critics slander Ashkenazy for spreading the opening chords of the second piano concerto: well, he has small hands and therefore cannot manage them (I find this problem too, even though my hands are quite large - the chords are awkward for most people, save maybe Richter and Rachmaninov himself).

Would it be heresy to say I preferred Ashkenazy's interpretations of Rachmaninov's entire output over Rachmaninov himself? Some would say so, others, the more philosophical of you out there, might just put it down to subjective viewpoint.

Why don't you buyers stop listening to reviewers, buy the CD, and find out for yourselves?

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Excellent selection!
Comment: I find that these recordings are very deeply felt by both the soloist and conductor.
I always like the way Vladimir Ashkenazy interprets these concertos. It is all the more enjoyable that he plays in such an unselfish manner and allows the music to properly flow. There is a tune near the beginning of the third concerto which I can show as an example. There are plenty of brilliant pianists, but so many of them overcook the romanticism and show off too much. It takes a musical giant like Ashkenazy to be able to hold himself back for the sake of the music. Being a professional orchestra player, I have played with quantities of great pianists. When I heard Ashkenazy he was incredibly brilliant and had wonderful musical flair.

---