Prokofiev Concerto 2 or 3????

[proklover]

Hi Piano street!

I am currently looking for a new concerto and I LOVE prokofofiev and I wanted to play one of his concerto. I've already learned his first concerto, but I've dropped it because I don't think it is impressive enough for competitions, and it isn't enough of a challenge (even though prokofiev won the Rubinstein competition with his own concerto no. 1 op 10) Anywayyyysss, I was wondering whether I should play his 2nd Concerto or his Third. I really love both, but the third is a bit over played...maybe...what do you guys think?
Also, I love the darkness and dramaticness of his second concerto, especially the first movement, but the third is more virtuosic? (Although the second concerto is also really difficult, esp. the cadenzas)
Which one should I play, Which one do you think is more difficult (in terms of technique, AND expression), and which one would be better to play in a competition?

Thanks!

PS.  it isnt a matter of personal skill, I could play both

[davidjosepha]

The second is the better concerto, and also considered the most difficult, I believe. If you are able to play it, play it.

[patrickd]

Prokofiev Concerto 2!

[scherzo123]

Prokofiev Concerto 2!

Prokofiev Concerto 3!  Just kidding, I only pick the third because I like it more .

[proklover]

The second is the better concerto, and also considered the most difficult, I believe. If you are able to play it, play it.

Which one is better for a competition though? I feel that the second is both technical and its very emotional...but im worried that it would be too obscure (is it?), because the third is so commonly played

[chopin2015]

You should always go in order. For example, I hate it when people skip all Chopin ballades and go to the last. I think you should go for concerto no. 2 now, since you have 1, Maestro.

[fnork]

I dont know of any pianist who would consider the 3rd harder than the 2nd. Not only is the 2nd longer, but it is also taxing in ways that the 3rd is not. The 2nd mvt of nr 2 is an all-unison moto perpetuo with both hands playing 16th notes non-stop - the very few intances of anything similar in the 3rd (like the recap in the 1st mvt, and thats not even completely in unison, and besides, completely pianistic), it usually lasts just for half a minute or so. In this sense, the 3rd has many of the same challenges but on a smaller scale - compare for example the final movements of the two concerti, which are similarly structured, with fast outer sections and a slower lyrical middle section. The 3rd concerto has a somewhat "compressed" middle part, while the 2nd has a very expansive middle part. And let's not forget that the 2nd concerto has its difficult cadenzas - the only solo you have in the 3rd is a solo in the 2nd movement.

That being said, the 3rd one poses certain problems as well, especially in terms of balance with orchestra and sense of continuity. I've studied and performed it (with 2nd piano only so far), and with so few moments to relax (the pianist is busy almost non-stop for half an hour), it is still a taxing piece, in my opinion. Go for the 2nd if you dare, do the 3rd if you dont

[proklover]

You should always go in order. For example, I hate it when people skip all Chopin ballades and go to the last. I think you should go for concerto no. 2 now, since you have 1, Maestro.

I skipped all the ballades and am playing the fourth...oops

I dont know of any pianist who would consider the 3rd harder than the 2nd. Not only is the 2nd longer, but it is also taxing in ways that the 3rd is not. The 2nd mvt of nr 2 is an all-unison moto perpetuo with both hands playing 16th notes non-stop - the very few intances of anything similar in the 3rd (like the recap in the 1st mvt, and thats not even completely in unison, and besides, completely pianistic), it usually lasts just for half a minute or so. In this sense, the 3rd has many of the same challenges but on a smaller scale - compare for example the final movements of the two concerti, which are similarly structured, with fast outer sections and a slower lyrical middle section. The 3rd concerto has a somewhat "compressed" middle part, while the 2nd has a very expansive middle part. And let's not forget that the 2nd concerto has its difficult cadenzas - the only solo you have in the 3rd is a solo in the 2nd movement.

That being said, the 3rd one poses certain problems as well, especially in terms of balance with orchestra and sense of continuity. I've studied and performed it (with 2nd piano only so far), and with so few moments to relax (the pianist is busy almost non-stop for half an hour), it is still a taxing piece, in my opinion. Go for the 2nd if you dare, do the 3rd if you dont

thanks! that was really helpful..i just assumed that since the entire third concerto is so fast, (as compared to the long first movement of the second), it was more flashy and technical compared to the second...well, i guess im picking the second! thanks!!