The Medtner piano concerti

[fnork]

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on the three piano concerti by Nikolai Medtner. All three are to my mind incredible works, intelligently balanced in form and content, full of lyricism as well as drama. Yet, they are not finding their way into the repertoire, and I started wondering whether there are any deficiencies in them. Re-listening to them with a critical ear, a few things came to my mind - not necessarily criticism, but some reflections.

Medtner seems to have a tendency of thinking in a 'piano-centered' manner, where the main thought tends to be in the piano part for most of the time (or if not, the piano usually has a counter-theme to the 'hauptstimme', and therefore also needs to be heard), and the orchestral ideas are there to provide support to these ideas. Whereas the Rachmaninoff concerti also focus on the piano, I feel that the resulting sound is more homogeneous than in the Medtner.

While I like most of the orchestration, I also have some moments of doubt. Not least when Medtner's contrapunctal writing creates several melodies to follow, usually distributed between the soloist and various solo instruments - this sort of writing sometimes feels contrived, and would be more succesful, say, in a 4-hand piece or one for two pianos.

Nevertheless, there is a lot to admire in these works. The first concerto, to me, comes off as the best of the three. In spite of that, some of these doubts made me put it a bit lower on my list sometime ago when an orchestra asked for repertoire suggestions....


Thoughts?

[theholygideons]

What about Lyapunov's concerti. no one ever talks about them.

[mjames]

What about Lyapunov's concerti. no one ever talks about them.

Ffs, it's not a hipster contest. There are quite a few recordings on YouTube, the second one is in my playlist. If I know about them, I'm sure many others do too.

About Medtners concerti(and his music in general), part of the reason I think these works are often neglected in standard repertoire is because they're too difficult to play and listen! medtners a great composer, quickly became one of my favorites but I won't lie, it took me awhile to get him. his music is not an instant crowd pleaser like the rach 2 or 3, the Grieg, the chopins etc. Like you said, his music is very piano-centric. I usually tell people that medtner is for pianists by pianist! Musicians from other fields don't particularly know him well, but he is quite famous among us pianists. I've heard from older musicians that medtner has been experiencing a revival over the past few decades and it won't be long until we see his concerti more often. As for my favorite out of the three, its the second one. It's just so *** amazing!

[pianississimo]

So glad you started a thread on this. 

I'm familiar with the first 2 Medtner concertos ...
The reasons for the concertos not being particularly successful in the modern era are understandable but, to my mind, not unconquerable.
The simple fact that not a lot of pianists are encouraged to study them is obvious; they are some of the most difficult in the repertoire (few dare to perform the 2nd live because it's just that complicated to pull off, especially when one considers the flexibility and consciousness of the orchestra that is needed) and for the time one spends studying them, that time could be used to learn more repertoire and, at that, popular repertoire - musicians must make their money ...
Another thing to consider, is that they are very cerebral compositions - I will admit to them being piano-centric, as has been mentioned before, however, most piano concertos are expected to focus on the piano, so that isn't terribly surprising ... I have been surprised and impressed with the understanding of the orchestra is displayed; the involvement of the orchestra in the development and exploration of the various themes and motifs is delightfully symphonic; the orchestral parts were written by a composer/pianist that was a far cry from Chopin (whose orchestral accompaniments are notorious for being ... Well ... Boring  ).
It's obvious that the composition of these concertos is highly complex (perhaps that is a fault in the 1st concerto). The 1st seems immature to me (although I love it!) - it sounds like a composer who has learned his lessons well, but has much to learn in the area of crafting musical passages that one can latch on to and learning the fine line between uninhibited virtuosity and gratuitous arpeggios; it's gorgeous and stirring (also, for me, highly entertaining), but abstract, and yes, sometimes contrived. The 2nd has a nice balance of profoundly simply, singable melodies, organic, unforced, innovative development and skillful counterpoint. I understate. It's ... Eloquently touching and has some wonderful moments of sheer joy.
All that said ... I only criticize because I'm speaking with those who understand the pieces ... If I was speaking to the rest of the musical world ... I'd say they're AWESOME!!! There are few concertos I enjoy as much ... If I ever attained the skill needed to play them creditably, I might make it my mission to establish them in the repertoire.