The last time Rachmaninov’s complete Preludes came my way was Steven Osborne’s widely praised account (Hyperion, 6/09), a set which I welcomed less enthusiastically than some of my colleagues. One reason for this was his leaden, elongated C sharp minor Prelude (the first and most famous of the 24), but Guillaume Vincent surpasses Osborne by a country mile. He adds an extra bar after the first two measures (a decision which simply vaporises Rachmaninov’s question-and-answer phrasing) and takes over a minute to play the final six bars. Something is wrong when Rachmaninov’s iconic Prelude in C sharp minor lasts 5'23". The composer made three discs and one piano roll of the piece and possibly (would you say?) had a good idea how to play it. The slowest of these (1928) lasts 3'41". Interpretation is one thing; narcolepsy is quite another.

Having misjudged Op 3 No 2, how does Vincent fare in the two sets? Pretty well, by and large, while by no means eclipsing the composer and others in individual preludes (Richter in Op 23 No 5, for example, or Moiseiwitsch in the heartbreaking B minor Prelude, Op 32 No 10, Rachmaninov’s own favourite). He has been well recorded in an attractive, natural acoustic, preferable to the rather dry sound of Ashkenazy’s benchmark recording, and creates an atmosphere that transcends the studio surrounds. Few accounts of Op 23 have made me as aware as this of Rachmaninov’s debt to Chopin (nothing distinct, just subtle hints), such as the étude-like No 7 in C minor (its ebb-and-flow pulse finely executed here) and No 8 in A flat, surely inspired by Chopin’s Etude Op 10 No 10 in the same key.

The harmonically bolder Op 32 set, with a number of the Preludes strikingly reminiscent of Medtner, are more consistently successful despite Vincent’s tendency to over-deliberate tempi (try No 9 in A major, hardly allegro moderato). He can produce the most bewitching of pianissimo tones, never more beguilingly than in the lovely G major Prelude. In short, Vincent has something interesting and personal to say about each of these little gems. His is more emotionally engaging than some other complete sets and, despite my reservations over ‘It’ (as Rachmaninov called his first-born), is well worth investigating.