competition concerto

[elevateme_returns]

Concerto must be under 25 mins. after all the options from the other thread I narrowed it down to these 5 but I cant choose between them.  can i have any thoughts / suggestions please?

[phil13]

Shosty is too easy.

Weber is good but could be too obscure.

In all honesty, I still think the Scriabin is perfect, because although the concerto itself is not often played, Scriabin will certainly be known as a composer by all the judges at this competition (that much it has over some other, more obscure concerti) and it is such a potently beautiful work.

That said, both the Pag Rhap and Totentanz are good choices- plus, you have the added bonus of only having to learn one mvt. each. 

Good luck.

Phil

[el nino]

i think paganini is the best choice,you have to play all the notes and the 18th variation very beautiful and then nobody will be able to say anything negative

[elevateme_returns]

thanks guys im seriously considering both scriabin & rachpag, however im worried i wont be able to get the scriabin under 25, and im worried that rachpag is played too much so no one will want to hear it

[phil13]

How long is Totentanz?

Phil

[tradge]

I'd say Totentanz like, it's mint! I think it's only about 15 minutes long, so it'd be a good bet

[elevateme_returns]

shosta - 15 -20
totentanz 15-20
weber - 15-20
rachpag & scriabin both 25 ish

[soliloquy]

The Rachmaninov is the only one suitable for a competition, although I'm not a huge fan of any of the concerti you posted =/

[pianistimo]

well, here's one for glazunov's concerto #1 in F minor - has only two movements.  the second is a set of variations and includes a coda in which thematic material from the first movement is recalled.  never really played it - so it's just an idea that i got from someone else.

the scriabin...'first movement is in allegro-sonata form, the second movement is a theme with four variations, and the finale is a rondo , in which the main theme of the first movement is clearly recalled near the end.  tonality is secure here.

shostakovich's piano concerto #2 'was first performed by the composer's son on his nineteenth birthday, 10 May 1957.  it is a light work full of youthful vigor.  the piano writing of the outer movements is dominated by a simple octave doubling between the hands.  the Andante middle movement is plain yet lyrical; it is followed by a lively dance-inspired finale featuring a frequently reinterated rhythm (measure 1 from III allegro)  lllll ll l l l '

[pianistimo]

totentanz 'is a set of free variations on the sequence of the dies irae from the mass for the dead, which berlioz had used to stunning effect in his symphonie fantastique (1830).  the theme of death was one of liszt's continuing variations on the dies irae theme.  the totentanz was inspired by frescos attributed to francesco traini depicting death as a female figure wielding a scythe.  liszt calls for a biting, percussive use of the piano and makes interesting use of canon, in variation IV, and fugato, in variation V.  Variation VI, while nominally the finale, is virtually another set of variations based on a derivative of the sequence.  glissandi and rapid chromatic scales are the favored virtuosic devices.  a particularly  demanding presentation of chromatic scales involving alternations between hands in octaves, another of liszt's technical innovations, is showcaed in these variations.  the orchestra's role is of little consequence.'

because of that last sentence - perhaps totentanz would win the prize.  but, the thing is - there are many other short concertos that are less well known.  sometimes it's something people haven't heard much of before.

[elevateme_returns]

  but, the thing is - there are many other short concertos that are less well known.  sometimes it's something people haven't heard much of before.

can you please name some?

[soliloquy]

I think if it has to be under 25 minutes, Prokofiev Concerto No. 5 is far and away the best choice.  It's almost exactly 25'

[dnephi]

Beethoven 3 or 4 would be a good choice if you could pull of 4.

[elevateme_returns]

is beethoven under 25??

[dnephi]

is beethoven under 25??

Apparently not, sorry.  I assumed it would be shorter than that. 

If that's eliminated, I'd go for totentanz, although it's easier than the other works on the list, it's more pianistically effective and very impressive to an audience.

[franzliszt2]

Simon you are an amazing musician don't go with crap like prok 5. Do somethinmg that people will like, such as rach pag. When you've won and your name is famous, then start looking at the strange stuff. Because lets be honest, prok 5 is bad, everyone admits it, so is a lot of this stuff. It doesn't have that thing about it. People want to hear stuff like rach concerto's played well, and nt many people do it, and I am convinced that you will do a great and unique job. Trust me, don't play totantanz, it's not you, your to sensible for crap like that. And you have the technique for it, so you'll be proving nothing. An audience these days see's far to much bang bang, so don't play liszt.

[mephisto]

Simon you are an amazing musician don't go with crap like prok 5. Do somethinmg that people will like, such as rach pag. When you've won and your name is famous, then start looking at the strange stuff. Because lets be honest, prok 5 is bad, everyone admits it, so

 

Sviatoslav Richter, yes thee Sviatoslav Richter said that it was one of his favourite piano concertos and his favourite one by Prokofiev. Why on earth are you saying it is crap? Maybe you have only heard bad performances of it. I don't know.

Because this concert is filled with genuis from start to end. Everything from humour, fury, charm, passion and subtelty is precent in this work. If you are unable to hear this I feel sorry for you.

[franzliszt2]

Richter preffered the 3rd. Prokofiev himself said the 5th wasn't as succsessful. The number of performances that we see of the piece show it is not great. I've heard Richter's recording and didn't like it. He only learnt it becasue he was asked by Prokofiev asked him to. Prokofiev also famously said, after the Richter concert..I know why they applaud you,m they want a Chopin nocturne as an encore. Or summit lik that. The concerto doesn't make sense in terms of structure, and the themes are not great. The harmony's are odd. I don't like it personally. Please don't let this post cause a mindless debate on the subject of Prok 5, i've stated my opinions, and will not be changed, and I respect people who like it. But I just mean it is not good for a competition. 

[mephisto]

Richter preffered the 3rd. Prokofiev himself said the 5th wasn't as succsessful. The number of performances that we see of the piece show it is not great. I've heard Richter's recording and didn't like it. He only learnt it becasue he was asked by Prokofiev asked him to. Prokofiev also famously said, after the Richter concert..I know why they applaud you,m they want a Chopin nocturne as an encore. Or summit lik that. The concerto doesn't make sense in terms of structure, and the themes are not great. The harmony's are odd. I don't like it personally. Please don't let this post cause a mindless debate on the subject of Prok 5, i've stated my opinions, and will not be changed, and I respect people who like it. But I just mean it is not good for a competition. 

I dob't want to discuss this issue either. But I have to confront the false statements made in this post:
1:Richter's favourite Porkofiev Piano concert was no5, not 3. The 3rd was not even in his repertoire. Not that I am saying every piece Richter loved was in his repertoire.
2: No Prokofiev didn't say that the 5th concerto was unsucsessfull. He said that it didn't have succsess with the audience. When Richter played it it had HUGE succsess.
3: The Chopin nocturne comment was just a harmless modest joke made by Prokofiev.
4: The structure is special, and unique. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.
5: Maybe the harmony is "odd".  But so are Chopin's, Liszt's and Wagner's etc. Let us use the word "amazing" instead.

[franzliszt2]

I dob't want to discuss this issue either. But I have to confront the false statements made in this post:
1:Richter's favourite Porkofiev Piano concert was no5, not 3. The 3rd was not even in his repertoire. Not that I am saying every piece Richter loved was in his repertoire.
2: No Prokofiev didn't say that the 5th concerto was unsucsessfull. He said that it didn't have succsess with the audience. When Richter played it it had HUGE succsess.
3: The Chopin nocturne comment was just a harmless modest joke made by Prokofiev.
4: The structure is special, and unique. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.
5: Maybe the harmony is "odd". But so are Chopin's, Liszt's and Wagner's etc. Let us use the word "amazing" instead.

Where does Richter say he preffered the 5th? I'd like to know, I always thought it was the 3rd. He said the 3rd sonata was his favouirte sonata but he didn't play it becasue he thought Gilels played it so well. Same with beethoven 5 and Nauhaus.


Just becasue a harmony is odd doesn't make it amazing. It just doesn;t appeal to me, so I can see why you may like it. I don't think the concerto is as good as the 1st 2nd or 3rd. The 4th is well... lol

[mephisto]

Quote from www.prokofiev.org

Richter frequently played Prokofiev's works in his recitals beginning in 1940, his favorite works being the Piano Sonata Nos 7 and 8, the Fifth Piano Concerto, and selections from the Visions Fugitives, Op. 22.

https://www.prokofiev.org/prokofievans/prkfartist.cfm?atype=Artists&aid=24

I will try to find a direct statement made by Richter.

[elevateme_returns]

Simon you are an amazing musician don't go with crap like prok 5. Do somethinmg that people will like, such as rach pag. When you've won and your name is famous, then start looking at the strange stuff. Because lets be honest, prok 5 is bad, everyone admits it, so is a lot of this stuff. It doesn't have that thing about it. People want to hear stuff like rach concerto's played well, and nt many people do it, and I am convinced that you will do a great and unique job. Trust me, don't play totantanz, it's not you, your to sensible for crap like that. And you have the technique for it, so you'll be proving nothing. An audience these days see's far to much bang bang, so don't play liszt.

ive seen the light. rachpag it is. thank you

[franzliszt2]

From the book  "Sviataslav Richetr, notebooks and converstaions"

"When I finally got hold of the music, I did not care for it very much. And Nauhaus had his doubts, recomomending that I take a look at the 3rd instead.

He performed the 6th sonata more than any of the others, and no2 in 2nd place.  

Another great thing he said...

"It remains one of my favourite works (8th sonata), alonside the 4th and 9th sonatas"

He didn't play the 5th concerto for 18 years after he played it first time.

The links you have posted are innacurate in many details about Richter. He was in fact 19 at the time of his debut recital for example. It isn't a primary source about him, the book I mentioned is.

[richard black]

If you actually want to win the competition, Rach Pag. I heard Piers Lane win a competition with it many, many years ago, and frankly he won it on the first note. Literally. He sat down, played that opening unison, and a vibe went round the hall that said 'he's won!'.

[elevateme_returns]

ive seen the light. rachpag it is. thank you

actually i stil dont know. but its more between rachpag & totentanz now

[pita bread]

Simon you are an amazing musician don't go with crap like prok 5. Do somethinmg that people will like, such as rach pag.

Well that shows what you really care about - pleasing crowds.

Sell out.

[elevateme_returns]

Well that shows what you really care about - pleasing crowds.

Sell out.

thanks for your helpful comment pita bread.  its amazing how you can judge what i care about from one sentence said by someone else.

[soliloquy]

Well that shows what you really care about - pleasing crowds.

Sell out.

Rachmaninov Paganini Variations WILL probably please the crowd more than the Prokofiev No. 5.



But, more importantly, Prokofiev No. 5 will please the judges more than Rachmaninov Paganini Variations.  It's not super-well known, so they're less-likely to spot tiny errors, you won't be playing the same concerto as like... 3 other people will be like if you went with the Pag (just look at the latest Cliburn and see what I mean), it's a technically impressive piece, and it is refreshing, showing off a wide variety of technical and musical ideas at the same time.

[elevateme_returns]

i understand. but i dont really like prok 5 as a piece, so i wouldnt really play it with enthusiasm

[dnephi]

I reiterate the Totentanz Idea.  It's not as crowd pleasing as the Rachmaninoff, but I don't even care much for the Rachmaninoff as a whole.

[elevateme_returns]

so scriabin not as popular as totentanz or rachpag? i think its better music than both of them but not as flashy

[soliloquy]

i understand. but i dont really like prok 5 as a piece, so i wouldnt really play it with enthusiasm

Ah ok; did not know you disliked it.  In that case I would probably go with Totentanz or the Rach, but a better and similar solution may be the Liszt Concerto No. 2, and no, the Scriabin is definitely not good for a competition, as it is relatively unknown.  Tbh, the Rachmaninov is probably the best-suited for a competition, but it is just soooooooooooo damn overplayed at any competition, especially if you're going to have a time limit that will cut a LOT of the normally seen concerti out.  You will basically have to play it better than everyone else, and that's a lot of pressure.

[phil13]

so scriabin not as popular as totentanz or rachpag? i think its better music than both of them but not as flashy

Does something in a competition HAVE to be flashy?

I don't know if the Scriabin concerto will please the judges (how can anyone know what pieces will please them? We can only know what they'll be sick of!) but it certainly will be as pleasing to the audience as the Paganini Rhapsody, if in a slightly different way.

..., and no, the Scriabin is definitely not good for a competition, as it is relatively unknown.

Once again, the reason why I suggested the Scriabin concerto in the first place was because, in my eyes, it has the advantage of being 'obscure' and 'not obscure' atr the same time. While Scriabin is quite well known amongst pianists, his Concerto is definitely not as often played as the warhorse concerti of the Romantics, like the Rachmaninoff. And there's almost NO chance that anyone else will be playing it, so you can distinguish yourself from the crowd without worrying about playing a concerto by a composer that almost nobody knows about.

Phil

[soliloquy]

Once again, the reason why I suggested the Scriabin concerto in the first place was because, in my eyes, it has the advantage of being 'obscure' and 'not obscure' atr the same time.

Being obscure is a disadvantage in a competition.

[pita bread]

thanks for your helpful comment pita bread.  its amazing how you can judge what i care about from one sentence said by someone else.

...

what made you think it was directed towards you?

[hodi]

i vote for scriabin !

[elevateme_returns]

...

what made you think it was directed towards you?

oh sorry i thought it was. if not my most sincere apologies

[elevateme_returns]

no, the Scriabin is definitely not good for a competition, as it is relatively unknown. 

hang on a sec. werent you just saying that the prok 5 is good because its unknown?

[franzliszt2]

Well that shows what you really care about - pleasing crowds.

Sell out.

Yes if you want to be succesfull you have to start by pleasing crowds, othrwise nobody will come to see you and you won't get any recitals

[soliloquy]

hang on a sec. werent you just saying that the prok 5 is good because its unknown?

There's a difference between slightly uncommon and completely obscure.

[clavicembalisticum]

Ah ok; did not know you disliked it.  In that case I would probably go with Totentanz or the Rach, but a better and similar solution may be the Liszt Concerto No. 2, and no, the Scriabin is definitely not good for a competition, as it is relatively unknown.  Tbh, the Rachmaninov is probably the best-suited for a competition, but it is just soooooooooooo damn overplayed at any competition, especially if you're going to have a time limit that will cut a LOT of the normally seen concerti out.  You will basically have to play it better than everyone else, and that's a lot of pressure.

Soliloquy is so right, he is almost always so right it is embarassing how right he is

As a side note, I wonder when I will be seeing somebody taking to competitions the Ligeti piano concerto...

[elevateme_returns]

would it change the situation if i said i was the only pianist in the final & the other finalists were different instruments?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Obviously.

I assume you're going to have a go at the BBC Young Musician competition. Good luck. Play what you're most musically comfortable with. It will probably show if you force/talk yourself into playing a concerto you don't like.

[elevateme_returns]

thanks im not planning on getting to the final but even for the 3rd round you have to have a recording of you playing your selected concerto

[pita bread]

would it change the situation if i said i was the only pianist in the final & the other finalists were different instruments?

Ok, I didn't realize you narrowed it down to five already. You might as well play the Rachmaninoff, it's a better piece of music than the others.

[elevateme_returns]

ok thanks pita i'll talk to my teacher see if he agrees