The Greatest Piano Concerto

[alejo_90]

I'm just reallly curious why you choose 23 (which is great) over 20 and 24?  Or 27?  The rest of your selections are superb.

Just curious.

thx

I don't know... Maybe because that 2nd movement made me cry the first time I listened to it, then I just got used to it. No.20 and 24 are still in my top 5, I love them both. And Gilels' Performance with Böhm of No.27 is also one of my favourites.

Best
Alex

[moi_not_toi]

What  I would like to ask is how can a PC be perfect when art is for its own sake, not for the sake of anything else and no one piece can be fairly compared to another?

[bflatminor24]

What  I would like to ask is how can a PC be perfect when art is for its own sake, not for the sake of anything else and no one piece can be fairly compared to another?

You epitomize ignorance. Of course art can be compared. Why do you think Picasso is a greater artist than some random person? Why is Beethoven better than some random person? Standards in art govern the hierarchy.

Interpretations can be stratified too. Why do you think Rubinstein is so well known for his interpretations of Chopin? Or Gould with Bach? Or Cziffra with Liszt?

Piano Concertos may be compared just like anything else. Of course it might be unfair to compare completely different styles of concerti, such as avant-garde with baroque, in the same way it might be unfair to compare cave drawings with Jackson Pollock. But when all things are considered, certain works of art stand above others.

~Max~

[gymnopedist]

Ravel D major is probably the most perfect LHO concerto. Are any of the others worth mentioning? I've only heard the Korngold (most incomprehensible thing i ever heard) and Prokofiev.

[panic]

"you epitomize ignorance." that's not very nice max.  

Actually though he brings up a good point, whether he meant to or not. I personally think that piano concertos started to decline in the Romantic era when composers started throwing in bravoura passages all over the place for no reason and turning the piano concerto from a work of art into a medium for showing off. The fact that Rach, Scriabin and Medtner wrote such magnificent and artful concertos in the midst of that is kind of miraculous.

[bflatminor24]

"you epitomize ignorance." that's not very nice max.  

Actually though he brings up a good point, whether he meant to or not. I personally think that piano concertos started to decline in the Romantic era when composers started throwing in bravoura passages all over the place for no reason and turning the piano concerto from a work of art into a medium for showing off. The fact that Rach, Scriabin and Medtner wrote such magnificent and artful concertos in the midst of that is kind of miraculous.

that's not very COOL chris.

yeah, but whatever,


CHRISSY THE CAMPUS BUTT! LOL!

when in doubt, eat a potato. lawl. wow. this sheet is chopin's ATTEMPT vs alkan sonata looks pretty. decipher? drink captain morgan. people all have feelings too. what is the piano doing in my head? it's playing. my head. is. wow. short sentenci. who knows of a good pc. maybe i have one. maybe you have one. maybe i dont have one. maybe you dont have one. who is people? be is mays? whos ares theys? my name isn't christopher tang. thanks clark willison you have a giant dent in your chest. channing's chandem randem tandem condom. because i said so. who is an eagle? Onions have no calories. eat grapefruit? then you probably hate buttsex. makes sense. think about it. name is max. remember that son, be famous some day. it happohn. yar.

K BYE.

[phil13]

that's not very COOL chris.

yeah, but whatever,


CHRISSY THE CAMPUS BUTT! LOL!

when in doubt, eat a potato. lawl. wow. this sheet is chopin's ATTEMPT vs alkan sonata looks pretty. decipher? drink captain morgan. people all have feelings too. what is the piano doing in my head? it's playing. my head. is. wow. short sentenci. who knows of a good pc. maybe i have one. maybe you have one. maybe i dont have one. maybe you dont have one. who is people? be is mays? whos ares theys? my name isn't christopher tang. thanks clark willison you have a giant dent in your chest. channing's chandem randem tandem condom. because i said so. who is an eagle? Onions have no calories. eat grapefruit? then you probably hate buttsex. makes sense. think about it. name is max. remember that son, be famous some day. it happohn. yar.

K BYE.

What the phuck is this?

You really need to lay off da ganja.

Phil

[jre58591]

that's not very COOL chris.

yeah, but whatever,


CHRISSY THE CAMPUS BUTT! LOL!

when in doubt, eat a potato. lawl. wow. this sheet is chopin's ATTEMPT vs alkan sonata looks pretty. decipher? drink captain morgan. people all have feelings too. what is the piano doing in my head? it's playing. my head. is. wow. short sentenci. who knows of a good pc. maybe i have one. maybe you have one. maybe i dont have one. maybe you dont have one. who is people? be is mays? whos ares theys? my name isn't christopher tang. thanks clark willison you have a giant dent in your chest. channing's chandem randem tandem condom. because i said so. who is an eagle? Onions have no calories. eat grapefruit? then you probably hate buttsex. makes sense. think about it. name is max. remember that son, be famous some day. it happohn. yar.

K BYE.

how many joints this time, max?

[desordre]

Hi there!
I know I'll be in this subject a very dissonant voice but I'll say it anyway.
Do you boys and girls really think that Rachmaninoff's Concertos are this great? I really do respect the individuals tastes and subjectivities, and think that is possible to someone get moved with this music. However, in a compositional sense (remember the avant propos: The Perfect Concerto), the Rach's (the 3rd in special) can't make the Top Ten.
Just to remember: Mozart (not all, but almost), Beethoven times 5, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms (that personally I don't like), Liszt, Grieg. Into the XXth century, there is a lot of brilliant concerti (Bartok , Rawsthorne, Carter just to mention some favorites). Even the overrated Tchaikovsky's 1st.
Best wishes!

[moi_not_toi]

that's not very COOL chris.

yeah, but whatever,


CHRISSY THE CAMPUS BUTT! LOL!

when in doubt, eat a potato. lawl. wow. this sheet is chopin's ATTEMPT vs alkan sonata looks pretty. decipher? drink captain morgan. people all have feelings too. what is the piano doing in my head? it's playing. my head. is. wow. short sentenci. who knows of a good pc. maybe i have one. maybe you have one. maybe i dont have one. maybe you dont have one. who is people? be is mays? whos ares theys? my name isn't christopher tang. thanks clark willison you have a giant dent in your chest. channing's chandem randem tandem condom. because i said so. who is an eagle? Onions have no calories. eat grapefruit? then you probably hate buttsex. makes sense. think about it. name is max. remember that son, be famous some day. it happohn. yar.

K BYE.

Wow,
I've heard a lot of schit, but this is just schit-asse!

[mikey6]

Hi there!
I know I'll be in this subject a very dissonant voice but I'll say it anyway.
Do you boys and girls really think that Rachmaninoff's Concertos are this great? I really do respect the individuals tastes and subjectivities, and think that is possible to someone get moved with this music. However, in a compositional sense (remember the avant propos: The Perfect Concerto), the Rach's (the 3rd in special) can't make the Top Ten.
Just to remember: Mozart (not all, but almost), Beethoven times 5, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms (that personally I don't like), Liszt, Grieg. Into the XXth century, there is a lot of brilliant concerti (Bartok , Rawsthorne, Carter just to mention some favorites). Even the overrated Tchaikovsky's 1st.
Best wishes!

In a compositional sense, you say maybe not the Rach? fair enough, I would agree, but then you mention the Chopin concertos? I don't think they epitomize what the genre stands for - I like them all the same but..

[desordre]

Dear Mikey6:
I place Chopin here just because I think he's important to the development of the very notion of Romantic concerto, i.e., soloist against orchestra (instead the classical "with orchestra"). This is a simple consideration, but anyway it's fundamental, don't you think? Maybe the Schumann's is the most important in this transition. However, Chopin has its place.
Anyway, I have to agree with you that neither of his concerti are in a par with Beethoven or Brahms in terms of "genre-perfection-degree" or whatever the name of this... )

[tompilk]

prok 2? rach 3? sauer 1? Dohnanyi 1?
I have to say i now really like the Stavenhagen piano concerto too...
Oh, the Alkan for solo piano of course! (if that counts)
Tom

[houseofblackleaves]

My vote goes to the Rach 2.

Rachmaninov 3rd doesn't even come close. (My OPINION)

[desordre]

 Hi there!
 I just listened to Schumann's Concerto at this year's BBC Proms, with Hélène Grimaud &
Jonathan Nott. What a beautiful music! And, for what matter here, what a major contribution to the genre.
 However, although it was a very good performance, my favorite is Uchida's (with Sir Colin Davis). 
 Best wishes!
 

[pianochild]

Mine is Rach 2 - it is perfect.
Also i like mozart concerto no 20 k466 the romance section.(i think its perfection)

[zheer]

 The paganine variation by Rahmaninoff .

[superstition2]

Standards in art govern the hierarchy...when all things are considered, certain works of art stand above others.

But, truth is not created or destroyed depending on popularity, with the exception of one truth: how popular something is. In other words, the fact that something is popular doesn't prove anything except that something is popular. We infer (guess) that something which is popular is worthwhile, and perhaps even superior to alternatives. But, in many cases, an inferior product can become more popular.

Windows 3 was greatly inferior to the Mac OS, for instance. But, there were reasons why the inferior product did better in the market, reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the product. More strikingly, people continued to use the primitive operating system DOS even though much more advanced systems like the Macintosh were available. The Mac OS in those days was actually quite inferior in some ways to Apple's earlier Lisa operating system, which failed in the market. IBM's OS/2 was superior to Windows, and it failed in the market, too.

McDonald's food is more popular than gourmet. It's not the quality of the food that makes it more popular, it is other factors, like price and convenience. Movies, games, and other products are often made less artistically credible than they could be in order to make them appealing to as large an audience as possible.

There is great art that doesn't receive the critical praise it deserves or the popularity with the masses might be able to have. There is less deserving art that received undue attention, like much "modern" visual art. I have painted paintings that are far more deserving of a space in a museum than paintings like the all-red canvas in Japan's Sakura museum. So has my mother. But, do you think our work will ever be considered for such a museum's display? Very very unlikely.

Nikolay Roslavets was a brilliant composer and the Soviet oppression machine ruined him. His obscurity vs. the popularity and critical acclaim of composers of inferior piano work (like Schoenberg) shows how there are many variables that determine how popular an artist's work is. Berg's sonata, although very enjoyable to listen to, is not as good as Roslavets' 5th. It's also not as good as Scriabin's late sonatas, even the somewhat weak 8th.

[superstition2]

My vote goes to the Rach 2. Rachmaninov 3rd doesn't even come close.

Come close in what way?

[superstition2]

However, in a compositional sense (remember the avant propos: The Perfect Concerto), the Rach's (the 3rd in special) can't make the Top Ten.

If people like the music, then the "compositional sense" is satisfied.

[desordre]

 Mr(s). Superstition2 (here we go again   ):
 First, you wrote:

(...)In other words, the fact that something is popular doesn't prove anything except that something is popular. We infer (guess) that something which is popular is worthwhile, and perhaps even superior to alternatives. (...)

Then:

If people like the music, then the "compositional sense" is satisfied.

How do you manage to think both? The fact that people likes something doesn't prove anything except that something is nice to this same people, don't you think? How can we prove that some music is a masterwork in terms of its compositional devices based on its popularity?
 And most of all:

(...)composers of inferior piano work (like Schoenberg)(...)

Why do you think Schoenberg's piano music is inferior? And inferior to what? As far as I can see, you are taking your personal taste as a critical tool, am I wrong? Or could you list to us some characteristics of this "inferiority"?
 By the way, I think that Roslavet's music is worth of listening, and that's a shame the fact that more people don't know his music. But, again, what's the point in comparing his music to Schoenberg's?
 Excuse me one more time for my dissonance with your thoughts.
 Best wishes!
 

[panic]

To follow up on what superstition said...Rach 2 is more well known among the public than Rach 3 because it's not as insanely hard to play, thereby making it more accessible to pianists and performance opportunities. Similarly, probably fifty to a hundred people know Liszt for every one that also knows Alkan, even though Alkan's music IMO proves that he was just about as good a composer, simply because his music is so f-ing hard that it's not that accessible to performance opportunities.

[bflatminor24]

But, truth is not created or destroyed depending on popularity, with the exception of one truth: how popular something is. In other words, the fact that something is popular doesn't prove anything except that something is popular. We infer (guess) that something which is popular is worthwhile, and perhaps even superior to alternatives. But, in many cases, an inferior product can become more popular.

Windows 3 was greatly inferior to the Mac OS, for instance. But, there were reasons why the inferior product did better in the market, reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the product. More strikingly, people continued to use the primitive operating system DOS even though much more advanced systems like the Macintosh were available. The Mac OS in those days was actually quite inferior in some ways to Apple's earlier Lisa operating system, which failed in the market. IBM's OS/2 was superior to Windows, and it failed in the market, too.

McDonald's food is more popular than gourmet. It's not the quality of the food that makes it more popular, it is other factors, like price and convenience. Movies, games, and other products are often made less artistically credible than they could be in order to make them appealing to as large an audience as possible.

There is great art that doesn't receive the critical praise it deserves or the popularity with the masses might be able to have. There is less deserving art that received undue attention, like much "modern" visual art. I have painted paintings that are far more deserving of a space in a museum than paintings like the all-red canvas in Japan's Sakura museum. So has my mother. But, do you think our work will ever be considered for such a museum's display? Very very unlikely.

Nikolay Roslavets was a brilliant composer and the Soviet oppression machine ruined him. His obscurity vs. the popularity and critical acclaim of composers of inferior piano work (like Schoenberg) shows how there are many variables that determine how popular an artist's work is. Berg's sonata, although very enjoyable to listen to, is not as good as Roslavets' 5th. It's also not as good as Scriabin's late sonatas, even the somewhat weak 8th.

You're right, but you missed my point. I wasn't arguing for popularity. I could give a rat's ass. what is popular or not. Gershwin is more popular than Alkan. But I consider Alkan a much better composer. I was defending standards.

Just as in beauty, where the golden ratio, symmetry, and other proportionalities govern aethetics, standards in music govern quality. This doesn't mean that if music doesn't follow standards that is is bad music, but merely, most of the best music has certain things in common in accordance with standards. Consider this:

A good story has a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning introduces the scene or characters, the middle presents some kind of crisis or drama, which then climaxes and is resolved in the end. This doesn't mean that a good story MUST have these standards, but if you look at a lot of the best literature, namely heroic and tragic novels, you will see trends.

Wonder why the most revered composers in western classical music are Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven? I'm sure with enough studying, you'll find they did a lot of things in common. They set a very good framework for which a lot of classical music is based. The standards do indeed determine quality the same way that standards of ingredients in food govern the taste.

This may seem silly, but consider this: a hamburger generally has two buns, lettuce, tomato, ketchup, and a patty of beef. But some hamburgers are BETTER than others. If anyone has been to In-N-Out, you will agree that they serve much better burgers than their counterpart McDonalds. Why could this be? How can one form of creation be SUPERIOR to another?

The standards of the ingredients in In-N-Out's burgers are much higher than the standards in McDonald's: the vegetables are fresher, the buns are toastier and fresher, the burger is fresher and more genuine, and overall, In-N-Out does a better job of preparation.

So you sit here and tell me that standards don't exist, and that all forms of art/creation are subjective, with NO standards governing quality.

~Max~