Concerto? Rach 3?

[indutrial]

I'm not so much pissed about the fact that you just think the repertoire is wrong, as the fact that you seem to believe that conservatism has anything to do with it.

If anything, conservatism tells us that tradition has arisen for a reason.

Conservatism in the arts is counter-productive and needless. A proper liberal point of view espouses integration of the past with the present and the future. Only a backwards conservative deals in terms of absolutes - bringing in spurious abstract qualifications like "beauty" and weighing things in terms of market-share (more people like X than Y, so to hell with Y).

There's really nothing to be gained by trying to dignify being a stick in the mud. It would be nice if discussions about throwing new works into the mix wouldn't always degenerate into people trying to defend the old works. Nobody here is trying to say that the Rach 3 is a piece of s**t and that it's worse than a lot of unknown works. That work's clout is pretty much a given. The problem is that pianists have turned the idea repertoire into a "top-40 of all time" of sorts that hasn't allowed any new pieces in for years. It reminds me of rock musicians who can't get over playing "Stairway to Heaven" or "Smoke on the Water." It's like "yeah, that's great, but let's hear something new for a change."

[general disarray]

*** off talking about conservatism, you know sh*t. Pieces are played because they are liked.

Nice mouth on you.

For your information, I was commenting on the "conservative nature" of musical PROGAMMING. 

No one is challenging the worth of Rachmaninov.  His concerti are unbeatable.

What's your problem anyway?  Hormone imbalance?  Or are you just congenitally ill-mannered? 

[rallestar]

No, but I get pissed off when people talk about stuff they obviously have no knowledge about.

Industrial, the evolution of the arts is to me the very thing that proves that conservatism is the only ideology that makes sense in the real world - All of the arts have taken an evolutionary route rather than a revolutionary. If Rzewski had composed his music in the baroque period, it would have made no sense, because his music is, if I may use an analogy, laid as the (current) last stone of the pyramid that has been built throughout the history of music, whereas liberalism and socialism seek to intellectualize the approach to art, in the sense that there is an absolute truth and that truth must be reached, without acknowledging the society and culture, or in this case, music history, these thoughts are laid within - So to speak, socialism and liberalism are ideas that are utopian and therefore have designed the perfect pyramid all from the start without needing the help of evolution, whereas conservatism is the idea of organic evolutions that build the fundament for new thoughts.

It is hard to put this into words for me in english, which is not my first language, but to put it as short as I can: To conservatives, composers and their music are results of their time and place in music history, and they are part of a natural evolution. To other ideologies, they are floating free from any historical connection, which indeed is not the case.

I am assuming that there are those of you, that will now say that conservatives have stood their ground against everything new and strange. That is simply not true, or rather: There are those, who may have said that anything new was wrong, simply because it was new, but those people cannot be called conservatives.

My view of conservatism is based on the "father" of conservatism, Edmund Burke, and not whether or not people have fancied calling reactionaries for conservatives. It is not my fault, nor conservatisms', that people on this board seemingly aren't willing to make the distinction.

[faustsaccomplice]

Conservatism in the arts is counter-productive and needless.

A proper liberal point of view espouses integration of the past with the present and the future.

Only a backwards conservative deals in terms of absolutes - bringing in spurious abstract qualifications like "beauty"

There's really nothing to be gained by trying to dignify being a stick in the mud.

you may have a point, but one should be cautious not to go too far in the opposite direction, where standards for excellence can be lost. 

it is an open debate as to whether beauty can be qualified.  i personally think that there are certain absolutes about musical quality which are independent of personal preference and popularity. 

i'll grant you that you may be reacting to somebody's post, which was a bit extreme (to put it nicely). 
 
in my opinion, things are not all "relative" and about "personal preference."  i think it is possible to claim that one piece of music is definitively better than another.

[rallestar]

I apologise for the harsh tone in my first post here. I got carried away, so to speak.

Without commenting more on the liberalism/conservatism issue, in which I think I have stated my point, an interesting point is raised:

Is there such thing as objective beauty in music?

To me, and indeed, to clear any misunderstandings, to any conservative, the answer must be a clear no!

Our ideal of what is beautiful in music is, in my opinion, born out of the culture and musical environment we were raised in. For example, I don't respond much to Bartok. Even when his music is marked "molto espressivo" or something like that, it doesn't talk to my emotions.
What is perhaps more interesting, is that people seem to typically respond better to music by native composers of their homeland - Russians respond well to the great russian composers, hungarians to Liszt and Bartok etc.

What this shows to me is that the idea of beauty although not objective, has certain collective cultural frames - There is a general idea of what is beautiful, and people from the same cultures tend to share those ideas. This doesn't mean that Carl Nielsen is more beautiful than Bartok, necessarily, but it means that with my danish cultural heritage, I am more likely to respond to Carl Nielsen than Bartok.

This is why I so hate the beautynihilists like Xenakis, whose philosophy holds that there cannot be objective standards for beautiful and therefore seeks to make music as math.

Even so, it seems obvious beyond all debate, that beauty exists in music, and that there are indeed certain things regarded as being better and more beautiful than others. That's not to say they are so by some undefined godgiven measurement, but simply that they are so in the relation to people. That's why Xenakis' music has failed with the wide audiences - He simply underestimated them, and thought their idea of beauty was made out of ignorance. It is indeed not, it is made out of hundreds of years of musical tradition, that he sought to throw out the window in order to construct music from above, by intellect, instead of letting music become constructed from below, by organic evolution.

I don't think I'm making any sense any more. This subject intrigues me though.

[indutrial]

No, but I get pissed off when people talk about stuff they obviously have no knowledge about.

Industrial, the evolution of the arts is to me the very thing that proves that conservatism is the only ideology that makes sense in the real world - All of the arts have taken an evolutionary route rather than a revolutionary. If Rzewski had composed his music in the baroque period, it would have made no sense, because his music is, if I may use an analogy, laid as the (current) last stone of the pyramid that has been built throughout the history of music, whereas liberalism and socialism seek to intellectualize the approach to art, in the sense that there is an absolute truth and that truth must be reached, without acknowledging the society and culture, or in this case, music history, these thoughts are laid within - So to speak, socialism and liberalism are ideas that are utopian and therefore have designed the perfect pyramid all from the start without needing the help of evolution, whereas conservatism is the idea of organic evolutions that build the fundament for new thoughts.

It is hard to put this into words for me in english, which is not my first language, but to put it as short as I can: To conservatives, composers and their music are results of their time and place in music history, and they are part of a natural evolution. To other ideologies, they are floating free from any historical connection, which indeed is not the case.

I am assuming that there are those of you, that will now say that conservatives have stood their ground against everything new and strange. That is simply not true, or rather: There are those, who may have said that anything new was wrong, simply because it was new, but those people cannot be called conservatives.

My view of conservatism is based on the "father" of conservatism, Edmund Burke, and not whether or not people have fancied calling reactionaries for conservatives. It is not my fault, nor conservatisms', that people on this board seemingly aren't willing to make the distinction.

Like a lot of words in the English language, "conservatism" existed as simply a word before philosophy students and pundits everywhere began monopolizing these words into their belief systems and losing sight of how to divorce the two. The ideology of conservatism has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say here, and I figured that much could be ascertained from my posts. I was never denying that a composer like Rzewski is part of an overall musical tradition. I'm not taking any anarchical or nihilistic approach to the works of the baroque, classical, and romantic eras. What I'm skewering is the backwards conservatism of musicians who, either through ignorance or by will, constantly (and needlessly) push the classical favorites at the expense of unfurrowed fields of knowledge (and trust me, there are plenty).

The philosophical tenets of liberalism, socialism, and conservatism are all equally meaningless to what I'm talking about. Political incursions into aesthetic activity are generally noxious anyway. The same could be said about beliefs in things like absolute beauty or absolute good in the arts. These things only serve to debase taking an even-handed approach to phenomena. Hence, an uneventful symphony written by Mozart before he was ten gets more attention than an obscure twentieth century composer's most mature work. The goal here is to open more doors, not to window-dress the gilded doors that can never possibly be closed.

What I try to espouse is a liberal (open-minded) outlook with a conservative (disciplined) approach. I guess neither point of view can take the cake. When conservatives get the last call, you get artistic stagnation and contemporary composers have to starve and see their work languish. When liberals and radicals control everything, everything degenerates into decadant dadaism. A good push-and-pull between the two is probably the most functional scenario. The reason I'm reacting to this thread is because I see the whole piano-contest thing as a dated conservative musical tradition that is merely treading water and wasting a lot of musician's individuality on a tired set of ideals that won't really let the individual players stand out in any way.

[indutrial]

This is why I so hate the beautynihilists like Xenakis, whose philosophy holds that there cannot be objective standards for beautiful and therefore seeks to make music as math.

Even so, it seems obvious beyond all debate, that beauty exists in music, and that there are indeed certain things regarded as being better and more beautiful than others. That's not to say they are so by some undefined godgiven measurement, but simply that they are so in the relation to people. That's why Xenakis' music has failed with the wide audiences - He simply underestimated them, and thought their idea of beauty was made out of ignorance. It is indeed not, it is made out of hundreds of years of musical tradition, that he sought to throw out the window in order to construct music from above, by intellect, instead of letting music become constructed from below, by organic evolution.

It's all about perspective, and always ALWAYS subjective. Relying on the idea that lots of people can connect with something does not define beauty. It merely outlines popularity. Millions of Americans eat McDonalds, but that won't disqualify my minority idea that McDonalds is s**t and I'd rather have sushi.

I personally find lots of emotional content in Xenakis's works, and to me, your unwillingness to accept it does not happen to carry more weight because lots of others would agree with you. Plenty of others would agree with me that Xenakis is indeed an important and very stimulating composer, but I wouldn't try to join up with them to take a collective dump on composers like Grieg, Beethoven, and Bach.

The problem I see with conservatism in music is that when push comes to shove, they always fall back on concepts like beauty, truth and popular appeal, which are essentially secondary characteristics to any artistic material, not to mention conceptual entities that flatly do not exist. Beauty is nothing in the same sense that love is nothing and that ghosts and vampires don't exist. Until they bottle up beauty and stick it next to the chocolate syrup at Walmart, I will remain dubious when someone starts using it at a qualifying argument. When you state that something is "beautiful" you are attempting to translate an unguagable emotion - certainly not attributing any modicum of empirical evidence to prove anything whatsoever.

[rallestar]

Like a lot of words in the English language, "conservatism" existed as simply a word before philosophy students and pundits everywhere began monopolizing these words into their belief systems and losing sight of how to divorce the two. The ideology of conservatism has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say here, and I figured that much could be ascertained from my posts. I was never denying that a composer like Rzewski is part of an overall musical tradition. I'm not taking any anarchical or nihilistic approach to the works of the baroque, classical, and romantic eras. What I'm skewering is the backwards conservatism of musicians who, either through ignorance or by will, constantly (and needlessly) push the classical favorites at the expense of unfurrowed fields of knowledge (and trust me, there are plenty).

The philosophical tenets of liberalism, socialism, and conservatism are all equally meaningless to what I'm talking about. Political incursions into aesthetic activity are generally noxious anyway. The same could be said about beliefs in things like absolute beauty or absolute good in the arts. These things only serve to debase taking an even-handed approach to phenomena. Hence, an uneventful symphony written by Mozart before he was ten gets more attention than an obscure twentieth century composer's most mature work. The goal here is to open more doors, not to window-dress the gilded doors that can never possibly be closed.

What I try to espouse is a liberal (open-minded) outlook with a conservative (disciplined) approach. I guess neither point of view can take the cake. When conservatives get the last call, you get artistic stagnation and contemporary composers have to starve and see their work languish. When liberals and radicals control everything, everything degenerates into decadant dadaism. A good push-and-pull between the two is probably the most functional scenario. The reason I'm reacting to this thread is because I see the whole piano-contest thing as a dated conservative musical tradition that is merely treading water and wasting a lot of musician's individuality on a tired set of ideals that won't really let the individual players stand out in any way.

That may well be, but in this case, you are using the word conservative wrongly. What you call a backwards conservative is in reality not a conservative, it's a reactionary.

But I think you are right in that of couse, a balance between breaking up all traditions and not moving forward at all must be found. I consider conservatism to be this balance, but that's a matter of semantics.

[rallestar]

It's all about perspective, and always ALWAYS subjective. Relying on the idea that lots of people can connect with something does not define beauty. It merely outlines popularity. Millions of Americans eat McDonalds, but that won't disqualify my minority idea that McDonalds is s**t and I'd rather have sushi.

I personally find lots of emotional content in Xenakis's works, and to me, your unwillingness to accept it does not happen to carry more weight because lots of others would agree with you. Plenty of others would agree with me that Xenakis is indeed an important and very stimulating composer, but I wouldn't try to join up with them to take a collective dump on composers like Grieg, Beethoven, and Bach.

The problem I see with conservatism in music is that when push comes to shove, they always fall back on concepts like beauty, truth and popular appeal, which are essentially secondary characteristics to any artistic material, not to mention conceptual entities that flatly do not exist. Beauty is nothing in the same sense that love is nothing and that ghosts and vampires don't exist. Until they bottle up beauty and stick it next to the chocolate syrup at Walmart, I will remain dubious when someone starts using it at a qualifying argument. When you state that something is "beautiful" you are attempting to translate an unguagable emotion - certainly not attributing any modicum of empirical evidence to prove anything whatsoever.

You say you aren't taking a nihilistic approach to this - And then you do it anyway. You cannot argue that beauty and love is nothing, unless you are a nihilist. The very simple fact that beauty and love have been so important to all human life goes to show that they do exist.

Whether or not you like it, there are certain ideas of what beauty within certain cultures. Let me show you through a very exact analogy: We have in western societies vastly different ideas of right and wrong from other societies. This doesn't mean that our laws are better or worse than anyone else's, subjectively, but it does mean that in our society, we have some general ideas of what is right and wrong - Almost everyone agrees that murder is wrong based on our cultural context, and even if you don't perhaps don't think murder is wrong, it is still considered wrong in our culture. So it is with music. Your taste may differ from our culture, but that doesn't mean that there in our culture doesn't exist a general idea of what beauty is - Even if you personally don't share that idea. (Which to some extent you naturally do, for even the works of the most insane 21th century composers are based on other works of music and art.)

So indeed, beauty isn't just all equal. There are some things that are more beautiful than others, regardless of what you think. Or lets take your argument to its natural conclusion: Me yelling "()¤("=!)#=##)!!!!)()!!" is as beautiful as every single piece of music ever written - Objectively.

Objectivity is worth nothing in my eyes. Art and beauty lies in the subjectivety, in the unequalness, in the humanity. Not in mathematics.

[indutrial]

That may well be, but in this case, you are using the word conservative wrongly. What you call a backwards conservative is in reality not a conservative, it's a reactionary.

A reactionary is an active conservative. In the political sphere, I would call the U.S.'s current crop of neocons reactionaries. In the music world, these folks do exist, and most of them own and operate record companies and program performance venues' seasons. Though, there is still plenty of malaise coming from the more passive conservatives out there who quietly help the reactionaries' goals along frankly by not doing anything accept clinging to their precious past and ignoring the future (and the present). The conservative music crowd doesn't act quite as actively offensive as the reactionaries out there, but they certainly don't do anything to stop the reactionaries from moving us backwards. It's like people who decide not to vote because it's easier to go home and watch television.

[rallestar]

You are simply stating what is factually as wrong as saying that liberalism is opposed to personal freedom. Conservatism has nothing to do with being a reactionary, and if you are in doubt, read Burke.

[general disarray]

You are simply stating what is factually as wrong as saying that liberalism is opposed to personal freedom. Conservatism has nothing to do with being a reactionary, and if you are in doubt, read Burke.

Burke, whom you seem to be much more conversant with than I am, is not the ultimate "definer" of the English word "conservative" or the seminal entity who gave the word its common, accepted meaning.  As a philospher, he commandeered that word and re-defined and refined it for his purposes in his own philosophical system.

Any dictionary of the English language defines "conservative" this way:

"adj.  averse to change   noun:  one averse to change."  (Chambers Dictionary).

I don't mind being disagreed with, but I get my hackles up when I'm told I don't know what I'm talking about -- in the most insulting language -- when I clearly do know what I am talking about. 

It's your imposition of Burke's meaning for the word that is the error here -- and not my profound ignorance of Burke that seems to be so offensive to you.  We are using the standard English meaning as it is employed in everyday usage.  Burke's definition is beside the point in this context. 

[kriskicksass]

If you want something fun that nobody plays, try Vaughan Williams. Most people don't even know he wrote a piano concerto. The main drawback is that it's way too full of notes. He even later went back and transcribed it for two pianos to make it more playable. Still, a fun piece.

[rallestar]

Burke, whom you seem to be much more conversant with than I am, is not the ultimate "definer" of the English word "conservative" or the seminal entity who gave the word its common, accepted meaning.  As a philospher, he commandeered that word and re-defined and refined it for his purposes in his own philosophical system.

Any dictionary of the English language defines "conservative" this way:

"adj.  averse to change   noun:  one averse to change."  (Chambers Dictionary).

I don't mind being disagreed with, but I get my hackles up when I'm told I don't know what I'm talking about -- in the most insulting language -- when I clearly do know what I am talking about. 

It's your imposition of Burke's meaning for the word that is the error here -- and not my profound ignorance of Burke that seems to be so offensive to you.  We are using the standard English meaning as it is employed in everyday usage.  Burke's definition is beside the point in this context. 

I don't see the reason for discussing the semantics of a word rather than it's actual meaning. So tell me,when someone is a socialist, is that person:

Someone who is social towards others.
or
Someone who subscribes to the socialist ideology?

The answer seems obvious - Words must be defined by their usage rather than their semantic meaning. Or what about a word like, say, idiot, which means "one who doesn't take part in public affairs", stemming from old Greece. The word obviously has a new and different meaning today, so we accept that meaning of the word, rather than the semantic meaning.

[general disarray]

The answer seems obvious - Words must be defined by their usage rather than their semantic meaning. Or what about a word like, say, idiot, which means "one who doesn't take part in public affairs", stemming from old Greece. The word obviously has a new and different meaning today, so we accept that meaning of the word, rather than the semantic meaning.

And your point is regarding the word "conservative?" 

Look in any dictionary and you will see the definition corresponds with the everyday usuage.  Even the word "conservatism" is defined by Chambers as "the opinions and principles of a Conservative:  dislike of innovations."

Am I to assume we've come to agreement on this?

Pace Burke?

This is the definition in common usage among English-speaking peoples. 

[rallestar]

We have reached agreement of how words should be used, but disagreement as to how the word conservative is generally understood.

[viking]

Haha I have no clue what this argument is about.  Too many words... 
Damn I just bought Brahms 2 and I'm loving this so much.  It's not very difficult to learn the notes after Prok 2....  Hmm..

[franz_]

Viking, where are you from, at what conservatory are you studying, do you have a website?
I'm curious about a 19 year old playing Prokofiev 2nd.

[viking]

Hey,
I'm from Saskatchewan, which is pretty much north of and in between North Dakota and Montana (in Canada).  I'm now in my first year of conservatory training at the Glenn Gould School in Toronto.  No, I do not have a website, as I haven't won any huge competitions, have never toured, or even performed with an orchestra.  However, if you have any doubts as to if I can play the concerto, I do have a youtube video currently posted of just the cadenza, filmed in June of 2007.  Type in my name, "Samuel Deason" and you should be able to find it.  I need an orchestra though so badly!!  Everyone's scared of the concerto, as it's likely a conductor's nightmare. 

EDIT:
I attatched my most recent performance of the Cadenza.  Hope you like it!

Sam

[franz_]

Hi, I watched you on youtube, pretty good! Hope you will play it with orchestra.
Are you among the best pianists at your conservatory?
I'm also 19, but the Prokofiev now is to high for me   How long did you worked on it?

[viking]

Hey,
I wouldn't say that I'm the best pianist at my conservatory, as there are many other pianists, up to 28 years old who play extremely well - much better than I.  I just seem to have the ability to be able to tackle the huge 20th century warhorses.  I started working on the concerto off and on pretty much since February.  That being said, I still have a TREMENDOUS way to go before I am able to present a convincing performance of composers such as Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, and Debussy.  But I guess we all have our own strengths and weaknesses. 

Sam

[mephisto]

Probably.... aren't they all when you're a student?

Sam

No.

[viking]

So I guess I decided to learn Rach 3 and Saint-Saens 5 over the next year or so.  Hopefully this will even out my largely 20th century repertoire to give me room to unbalance it again shortly. 

[indutrial]

If you enjoy Poulenc's writing, I would also recommend checking out Bohuslav Martinu's concertos (not sure how many there are). Martinu was part of the loosely-knit L'Ecole de Paris who draw considerable influence from Les Six composers (Poulenc and Milhaud) and Nadia Boulanger's teachings. Not being a pianist, I don't know the difficulty, but Martinu always wrote exceptional stuff.

Alexandre Tansman also wrote a few concertos and his are probably considerably demanding (he was a world class concert pianist for years, even while he was composing). Perhaps not as stately as something like Rach 3, but certainly more interesting in terms of harmonic (Tansman-ian skyscraper chords) and rhythmic approach (lots of odd times imposed over 4/4's)

Sorry to keep pushing post-1920 works. It makes up a huge area of my studies as a music historian.

[retrouvailles]

I will second the suggestion for a Martinú concerto. His concertos have some of the most unique sounds I've heard, not to mention harmonies, and yet they retain a tonality, which should be good for your audience. I have seen the scores for 3 of them and there looks to be some awkward things in there, but nothing comparable to Rach 3 I don't think. I suggest you take a look at them, particularly 2-4. As indutrial said, it is exceptional stuff. I have always admired Martinú for these concertos.

He even has some non-concerto piano/orchestra works that are looking into, in particular a piece for left hand and orchestra.

[indutrial]

He even has some non-concerto piano/orchestra works that are looking into, in particular a piece for left hand and orchestra.

Martinu did a couple of Sinfonietta pieces for piano and chamber orchestra, in addition to the 5 regular concertos, not to mention loads of other stuff - he composed over 350 works, many involving piano in some way.

I just listened back to Tansman's 2nd. Like all of his scherzo movements, the 2nd movement of that sounds like a bloody workout.

You might also look into Szymanowski's Symphonic Concertante for piano and orchestra, which is a stunningly beautiful work.

I've been listening to this great heap of French concertos that someone gave me a while ago with Milhaud's 2nd, Jolivet's, and Vierne's Poeme for piano/orch..

[retrouvailles]

Now, I am sorry for pushing post 1920 works, but Erwin Schulhoff's Concerto for piano and small orchestra is one worth noting (its actually from 1923). It has a sort of impressionist style, with hints of jazz and dadaist ideals. Schulhoff was quite the composer for piano. His works have a futurist style with many modern concepts, yet they hold true to the standards of Western tonality.

And I agree with the Szymanowski Symphony Concertante being a good idea. That is a wonderful piece that should be heard more. It also doesn't look or sound difficult, like Rach 3.

[indutrial]

I think that the concertos of the 1910s-1920s (post-romantic, post-Scriabin, polyphonic, neoclassical, jazz-influenced, whatever) should be the next phase of concertos that pianists start working over, especially since the romantic repertoire has been almost sucked dry and beaten to death. It's not like the works of that period are comparably easy or anything. A problem with playing something like the Rach 3 is that there's probably an undue pressure implied, since most judges have seen it so many times that they're going to be overly picky about tons of details in the piece. They'll be grouchily looking for your mistakes instead of your getting excited by your highlights.

[retrouvailles]

Yeah, which is one reason why for my next concerto, whenever I learn it, I will pick something from this time period. I won't bother picking something that judges can easily get on your ass for. The Schulhoff is high on my list as of now.

[iumonito]

Viking, how wonderful to be 19 and being in the process of making the piano repertoire your lifelong friend.

Although obviously you have the equipement to learn the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 3, I think you should wait until you feel a strong urge to learn it.  I tobviously is one of the best pieces of music ever written for the piano, regardles of how often people play it in competitions.  I wish for you that you at some point stop looking at it as a track and start living it as home and an old friend.  It is such a masterwork!

In the meantime, I think you should do something that is exciting for you at the moment.  You seem hesitant to do another 20 or 21st century work (otherwise Corigliano, the two Ginasteras, Bartok 1 or 2 or the two Ravels sound like excellent choices).  You seem to be in the mood for Rachmaninov 1 (revised version) which is a masterwork as well.  Rachmaninov 4 is also a great work, if you fancy it.

I smiled at your comment regarding Brahms 2.  Do you play Brahms 1?  He wrote it young and I have always thought it was wonderful to learn it in my youth when I was about your age (a little older).  It is a passionate and profound work, but certainly does not require the type of life experience that you are identifying as necessary to play the second.

Did anyone mention Tchaikovsky 2?  It is a great work.  Tchaikovsky 1 has kind of disappeared from the repertoire after being the "Rocky 3" of two generations ago.

Unless you are in love with it and have an opportunity to play it with orchestra, I would stay away from the out-of-the-beaten-path concertos, like Bortkiewick (spl) or Kapustin or the like.  I prefer Saint-Saens 4 rather than 5, but that is just my preference.  SS 2 is of course a bon-bon, but you should not study it if you are going to be looking down on it.

Best wishes and good luck!

[indutrial]

Now, I am sorry for pushing post 1920 works, but Erwin Schulhoff's Concerto for piano and small orchestra is one worth noting (its actually from 1923). It has a sort of impressionist style, with hints of jazz and dadaist ideals. Schulhoff was quite the composer for piano. His works have a futurist style with many modern concepts, yet they hold true to the standards of Western tonality.

Another strong choice would be playing one of Stravinsky's Concerto for Piano and Winds. The piece features some excellent toccata passages. The Capriccio for piano and orchestra is also a good choice, also from his post-Rite-of-Spring neoclassical phase.

[johnnyb76]

How about the Arensky or von Sauer concerti? Maybe Reinecke? His C major concerto is one of my favourites. Lots of beautiful, lyrical moments.

Has anyone mentioned the Scharwenka? How about the Tchaikovsky 2nd and 3rd? Wow there is so much underplayed stuff....

I hope you find what you're looking for soon

[richard black]

Hi Viking, sounds from that clip as if you can get big chords down convincingly so I'd second the suggestion for the Reger. Seldom played but not nearly as obscure as some suggestions. And Vaughan Williams - hey, I'd almost forgotten that piece exists. I learned it once, can't even remember if I played it for an audience. I think it works as a solo piano concerto if you play it a bit like Prok 2. Probably death on a plate in a competition, though.