|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
78 members (beeboss, brdwyguy, Burkhard, benkeys, Abdulrohmanoman, accordeur, Animisha, 15 invisible),
2,151
guests, and
477
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
He also claimed that an obscure work by a Ludwig Schytte "put Liszt to shame," which is an assertion I fear I'd have a hard time understanding after hearing the piece in question.
I've heard the work. (The CD is in my library.) It's actually not bad, and could certainly be revived, along with the Moszkowski, in place of the (all too) standardized stuff we usually get at concerts. (There would have to be one helluva knock-out coupling for me to attend any concert with the Schumann concerto... or Martha would have to be playing.) But as far as putting Liszt to shame, well that is a bit of a stretch. (To be fair, a fb friend thinks equally highly of the piece, which is why I purchased the CD in the first place.) I've just listened to it, and of course it's "not bad," but when compared to Liszt, I mean...come on. And a lot of it is stolen from Liszt, Chopin, and their contemporaries. The finale is the strongest movement, in my opinion - it's the most original and the most interesting. Still, it pales in comparison to the the finales of Chopin's concerti, for example.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 217
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 217 |
He also claimed that an obscure work by a Ludwig Schytte "put Liszt to shame," which is an assertion I fear I'd have a hard time understanding after hearing the piece in question.
I've heard the work. (The CD is in my library.) It's actually not bad, and could certainly be revived, along with the Moszkowski, in place of the (all too) standardized stuff we usually get at concerts. (There would have to be one helluva knock-out coupling for me to attend any concert with the Schumann concerto... or Martha would have to be playing.) But as far as putting Liszt to shame, well that is a bit of a stretch. (To be fair, a fb friend thinks equally highly of the piece, which is why I purchased the CD in the first place.) I've just listened to it, and of course it's "not bad," but when compared to Liszt, I mean...come on. And a lot of it is stolen from Liszt, Chopin, and their contemporaries. The finale is the strongest movement, in my opinion - it's the most original and the most interesting. Still, it pales in comparison to the the finales of Chopin's concerti, for example. Let me just point out that my favorite pieces are different from your favorite pieces. That's enough for now, I think. I don't see why I have to get verbally harassed and berated for simply expressing my viewpoint. And I thought that the forums here were enlightening and more engaging than this. So disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
He also claimed that an obscure work by a Ludwig Schytte "put Liszt to shame," which is an assertion I fear I'd have a hard time understanding after hearing the piece in question.
I've heard the work. (The CD is in my library.) It's actually not bad, and could certainly be revived, along with the Moszkowski, in place of the (all too) standardized stuff we usually get at concerts. (There would have to be one helluva knock-out coupling for me to attend any concert with the Schumann concerto... or Martha would have to be playing.) But as far as putting Liszt to shame, well that is a bit of a stretch. (To be fair, a fb friend thinks equally highly of the piece, which is why I purchased the CD in the first place.) I've just listened to it, and of course it's "not bad," but when compared to Liszt, I mean...come on. And a lot of it is stolen from Liszt, Chopin, and their contemporaries. The finale is the strongest movement, in my opinion - it's the most original and the most interesting. Still, it pales in comparison to the the finales of Chopin's concerti, for example. Let me just point out that my favorite pieces are different from your favorite pieces. That's enough for now, I think. I don't see why I have to get verbally harassed and berated for simply expressing my viewpoint. And I thought that the forums here were enlightening and more engaging than this. So disappointing. You must realize that if you are going to make such controversial assertions you are going to be challenged on them. If your viewpoint is that concerti by such composers as Moszkowski and Schytte are vastly superior to those by Liszt and Brahms, we must wonder when something stops being a subjective viewpoint and starts being an objective absurdity.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 498
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 498 |
This, by an exponential ranking of awe to the nth. - Ludwig van Beethoven: Piano Concerto No 5 And then this. - Bach: Harpsichord Concerto No.1 in D Minor And these are top favorites for various reasons: - Ludwig van Beethoven: Piano Concerto No 4 - Ludwig van Beethoven: Piano Concerto No 3 - Franz Liszt: Piano Concerto No 1 - Sergei Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No 2 - Maurice Ravel: Piano Concerto in G - Handel: Suite in F major - Camille Saint Saens: Piano Concerto No. 2 - Mozart Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major
And lastly, all others listed thus far in the thread.
Piano is hard work from beginning to forever.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 118
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 118 |
Besides the famous Rach, Grieg, Beethoven, Brahms etc. the greatest (underplayed) piano concertos
PLEASE Listen to these if you don't know them and make you own judgement!
- Saint Saens 5 - Paderewski 1 - Rubinstein 4 - Rimsky-Korsakov - Bortkiewicz 1 - d'Albert 1 - Moskowski 1
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392 |
...we must wonder when something stops being a subjective viewpoint and starts being an objective absurdity. Subjective viewpoint: Rach 2 > Rach 3 Objective absurdity: Weber 2 > Beethoven 5 (Secretly, I just love the Weber Eb -it has some gloriously audacious moments, particularly in the last movement- but compared to the Beethoven Eb? Earth to Jason?)
Jason
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,746
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,746 |
Brahms 1 Beethoven 5 Brahms 2 Beethoven 4 Liszt 1 Liszt 2 Liszt Hungarian Fantasy Tchaikovsky 1 Rachmaninov 2 Bartok 2 / Prokofiev 2 / Grieg battle for 10th
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392 |
- Saint Saens 5 - Paderewski 1 - Rubinstein 4 - Rimsky-Korsakov - Bortkiewicz 1 - d'Albert 1 - Moskowski 1
Very original take, and thank-you! I know and love all those concertos, though I would humbly maintain that S-S 5 is the best of the lot. But the R-K is not far behind, and it mystifies me why this delectably Lisztian concerto is not more often performed. Perhaps just me, but I find the Paderewski rather saccharine, although compared to the other concertos, it is not particularly difficult, and might make a nice alternative to the Grieg for a student. Rubinstein 4 (definitely the best of his 5) can sometimes sound like so-what-was-all-the-excitement-about?, but in the right hands, it still works a magic. One wonders how the composer sounded in this work; many people praised his playing to the skies.
Jason
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392 |
Liszt Hungarian Fantasy Oh Damon, never a dull moment with you!
Jason
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060 |
Subjective viewpoint: One can rank works of art. Objective absurdity: One can rank works of art!
Semipro Tech
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 498
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 498 |
Subjective viewpoint: One can rank works of art. Objective absurdity: One can rank works of art! Objectively, those statements make perfect sense. Subjectively, I beg to differ.
Piano is hard work from beginning to forever.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 560
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 560 |
- Saint Saens 5 - Paderewski 1 - Rubinstein 4 - Rimsky-Korsakov - Bortkiewicz 1 - d'Albert 1 - Moskowski 1
Very original take, and thank-you! I know and love all those concertos, though I would humbly maintain that S-S 5 is the best of the lot. But the R-K is not far behind, and it mystifies me why this delectably Lisztian concerto is not more often performed. Perhaps just me, but I find the Paderewski rather saccharine, although compared to the other concertos, it is not particularly difficult, and might make a nice alternative to the Grieg for a student. Agree on both counts. SS 5 is high up on my list, and I absolutely love the Rimsky-Korsakov. For some reason it is kinda obscure as I didn't know it existed until I was browsing IMSLP. Needs to be played more in concert, I would gladly pay to see it!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,061
7000 Post Club Member
|
7000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,061 |
Jason, I love your viewpoint on other concertos you prefer to Rach 3, and you have caused me to listen to them tonight, which is great!! But comparison to the Rach 3? Well... I'll enjoy the suggestions you give me, but I won't compare... As a great pianist once told me, just enjoy. I need to learn to do that more! Just enjoy, not compare
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392 |
I need to learn to do that more! Just enjoy, not compare Point well taken, Ethan. But I always get uncomfortable when people here treat Rach 3 if it were written by, well, God. (This is indeed a piano forum, so critical thought tends to be blind and glaringly biased.) Everyone seems so impressed with that BIG cadenza which is so foolishly bombastic, almost idiotic in its attempt to be 'important'. Funny that the composer, Horowitz and Argerich knew better, which, apparently is lost on most people here.
Jason
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,746
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,746 |
Everyone seems so impressed with that BIG cadenza which is so foolishly bombastic, almost idiotic in its attempt to be 'important'.
While we don't agree on much, we do here, exactly!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277 |
Point well taken, Ethan. But I always get uncomfortable when people here treat Rach 3 if it were written by, well, God. (This is indeed a piano forum, so critical thought tends to be blind and glaringly biased.)
Everyone seems so impressed with that BIG cadenza which is so foolishly bombastic, almost idiotic in its attempt to be 'important'. Funny that the composer, Horowitz and Argerich knew better, which, apparently is lost on most people here.
Objectively, the BIG cadenza is brilliantly bombastic, in keeping with the rest of the concerto. The small one was obviously an afterthought because of Rach's chronic insecurity (if Chopin's cadenzas are so short and concise, his should be too....), and it just sounds like something from Rach/Pag has been transplanted into a different, much bigger, much more chordal and heavyweight work. If Gieseking, Cliburn, Ashkenazy, Berman, Bronfman, Sokolov, Gavrilov, Berezovsky, Kissin, Pletnev, Lang Lang, Volodos, Matsuev etc all choose the BIG cadenza - and they're all the greatest past and present exponents of this MONUMENTAL work, I think that fact shouldn't be lost on anyone. BTW, Ashkenazy, Douglas, Pletnev and Berezovsky switched from the small cadenza to the BIG one as they matured. I don't know of anyone who switched from the BIG one to the small one as they matured.
If music be the food of love, play on!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 560
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 560 |
I give more chances to this concerto [2nd] than any other work, I think. I just can't get past the first movement. I don't "get" it, it's too much like a fantasia, too much starting and stopping.
Even the very tightly constructed 2nd movement? Sheer unfettered delight! It would make a great encore along with the equally delightful finale of the 3rd. But I still feel that the 5th is by far the best of the bunch. It is a piece I rate very highly (as OSK knows!) even outside of the S-S canon. (It is a better work, IMO, than several concertos I have seen on other lists here. ) There are definitely parts that I enjoy, and the 2nd movement is one of them. The first movement is a turnoff for me for whatever reason, but I guess I need more time; there are plenty of pieces that I didn't care for for a while (like Scarbo, what was I thinking?!). However it was on the radio last night and I listened to a good while and enjoyed it. I can't praise SS 5 enough, it is just a masterpiece in my opinion. The piano writing is so fantastic; there's no big show-y cadenzas, instead just shimmering fingerwork that weaves in and out with the orchestra. It never overpowers, it just perfectly complements the other instruments.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,328 |
I need to learn to do that more! Just enjoy, not compare Point well taken, Ethan. But I always get uncomfortable when people here treat Rach 3 if it were written by, well, God. (This is indeed a piano forum, so critical thought tends to be blind and glaringly biased.) Everyone seems so impressed with that BIG cadenza which is so foolishly bombastic, almost idiotic in its attempt to be 'important'. Funny that the composer, Horowitz and Argerich knew better, which, apparently is lost on most people here. Not on me, Jason. I completely agree that the small cadenza makes more sense and is better written. My love and reverence for the concerto is not in any way based on its technical difficulty, something you have accused me of multiple times.
Regards,
Polyphonist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392 |
The small [cadenza] was obviously an afterthought because of Rach's chronic insecurity...
I would not be so quick with that conclusion. Not necessarily 'insecurity', perhaps more a factor of re-thinking it? Why did Horowitz never play it? If Gieseking, Cliburn, Ashkenazy, Berman, Bronfman, Sokolov, Gavrilov, Berezovsky, Kissin, Pletnev, Lang Lang, Volodos, Matsuev etc all choose the BIG cadenza - and they're all the greatest past and present exponents of this MONUMENTAL work, I think that fact shouldn't be lost on anyone.
Well that is certainly a stellar cast. I think I have heard all of those recordings (my local classical station plays a new one every week, or so it seems), but a number of them fall into a category of 'modified rapture', or worse, just one more muscle-bound slog through the maze of notes. I'm surprised you didn't include Andsnes. I also notice that you pointedly excluded Argerich from your list, or is she not valid because she has honestly felt that the more modest cadenza works better? I doubt she would have had any problem with the 'big' one. Is her decision wrong? She is a better pianist, IMO, than a number of those I see above. And her recording, FWIW, has been praised, even if I think she tends to be a bit impatient at times. I would too. But it's all well and good. Either we think Rach 3 is the greatest piano concerto ever written (which seems to be the consensus here), or is it merely -as in the Bb minor sonata- just a conveyer of technical pyrotechnics frosted on a cake of modest musical architecture? This is precisely why I honestly feel that R's 2nd concerto is a better piece of music. The integration, nay, the conflict, between technique and architecture is so superbly reconciled. And yet -to make more enemies- look at the score of Prokofiev's 3rd. One quiet afternoon at work I downloaded the full score and paged through it. I could hear it all in my head, and was continually amazed at every juncture, such a radically new approach. Rachmaninov seemed a bit hum-drum after that.
Jason
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392 |
Not on me, Jason. I completely agree that the small cadenza makes more sense and is better written. My love and reverence for the concerto is not in any way based on its technical difficulty, something you have accused me of multiple times.
I do not recall any personal accusation since I respect your opinions here, and always have. OTH, you haven't particularly supported me (IIRC) on my preference for the shorter cadenza. I believe Hank Drake has. But with all the flurry of activity regarding anything about Rach 3 on this board, I could have missed something, or worse, been rude to you. I am active on a church music board, and if you think Rach 3 is a flash point, well just get a bunch of organists and choir directors together.
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,405
Posts3,349,434
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|