Paganini Variations for Piano and Orchestra (no , not that those)(example given)

[visitor]

These Lutoslawski variations are incredible. I fail to understand not so much why the Rachmainoff ones continue to be popular (they are great, i'm not arguing against that), but rather, whey they are so overwhelmingly played when this work receives relatively little play (it is refreshing to see a recent major broadcast w/ Hough at the helm), however it took an anniversary birthday to bring it to that stage that day.

Are not not good enough to receive more attention regularly by artists and orchestras and their audiences?
Thoughts?
I actually personally like these more.

[diomedes]

Despite a currently enormous admiration for Rachmaninov's works, i never got attached to the paganini variations and recently while trying again, it still didn't do much for me.

You mean the Lutoslowski 2 piano variations? I was asked to play it with someone many years ago, at the time it looked like a lot of effort.

[michael_c]

Thanks for posting that. A brilliant piece, inventive and witty.

[perfect_pitch]

Pianistically, they're pretty nice... Harmonically though, I think they're rubbish. To me, it's like someone writing a melody C Major, and someone comes along and sticks to may obscure 13th chords in there are times it almost makes the piece dissonant and without key... and I guess that just irks me to no end of the spectrum.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I played the Lutoslawski Paganini variations (2-piano) about ten years ago, not entirely successfully, but it was at short notice and with very little preparation. I rather like them, but there are practical organisational problems in the sense that each variation is a different tempo.

[j_menz]

My guess is that the real difference is that the Lutoslawski don't have the hook of the 18th that the Rach does. Shallow lot, programmers.

[visitor]

I guess Sergei just knew people like smaltz

[cameronbiles]

Has anybody else noticed that Lutoslawksi's variations bare a lot of resemblance to that of liszts?

[visitor]

Has anybody else noticed that Lutoslawksi's variations bare a lot of resemblance to that of liszts?

i see where you draw that conclusion.  I feel like he uses lots and lots of chromaticism like Liszt does at times but here the idiom becomes more modern however Frank in his time was very forward thinking ( especially very late in his output).  It's all the borrowed chords and shifted tonal centers that seem to give them both similar aftertastes at times.

[j_menz]

Might I alert you to an error I made in an earlier thread. Liszt transcribed Paganini's own variations, he didn't do a set of his own.

[cameronbiles]

Might I alert you to an error I made in an earlier thread. Liszt transcribed Paganini's own variations, he didn't do a set of his own.

I never knew that!

[visitor]

Might I alert you to an error I made in an earlier thread. Liszt transcribed Paganini's own variations, he didn't do a set of his own.

i'd forgotten that!  still there are cool tonally  unstable aspects to that transcription, but they  are benign for the most part. it's the instability of the Lutoslawski that i really enjoy, they don't seem to settle into themselves nearly as much as say Sergei's. But as was commented, it's his clinging to romantic harmonic planning that seems to keep him in favor w/ the masses

[j_menz]

Stephen Hough seems to have a hobby. Lowell Liebermann also did a Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini for piano and orchestra which Hough premiered. Can't find a recording, though, but I see it's in print published by Presser.

[pianoman1349]

Part of the reason that the Lutoslawski sounds so similar to the liszt is the fact that they are both transcriptions of the original violin caprice.  What Lutoslawski has done, however, is added his own unique harmonies and counterpoint to fill out and update the sound for a more modern audience.