Piano Concertos for L.H

[SDL]

Im thinking about learning Ravel/Prokofiev LH concertos.  I say Jean-Ives Thibodet play the Ravel LH with both hands which surprised me at the time.  Whats the done thing here?  Do you play with L.H (as I would have thought)?  Seems a bit odd as what to do with a non-active R.H in performance.  And do you shift around the piano stool for the trebble ranges.

On the other hand are you cheating with playing with R.H as well.  I originally wanted to learn LH concerto because they havent been played to death and to focus and  improve L.H technique only whilst learning a great piece of music.

[shasta]

Pieces written for the LH alone should be played with the LH alone.  Period.

I don't know about Thibaudet using both hands  <-- you're sure he was doing the Ravel D major (LH alone) and not the G major instead?

Anyway, to gain practice in order to get a feel of playing the treble with the LH and how to manage the RH (i.e. sitting quietly in your lap vs. conducting along vs. floating around for balance), perhaps you can try some smaller works for the LH alone to start with (Scriabin prelude & nocturne, Montsalvatge's Si a Mompou, some of Godowsky Chopin etudes...).  There have been threads on this repertoire before if you want to do a search. 

[Regulus Medtner]

Korngold wrote an awesome left hand concerto, after a commission by Wittgenstein (for whom  Ravel's and Prokofiev's LH concertos were written). Wittgenstein liked it so much, he commissioned yet another  work, the Suite for 2 violins, cello and piano LH. Both are fantastic. The concerto is truly a riot and very difficult.

Richard Strauss also wrote a left hand "concerto", the Parergon from Symphonia Domestica. It uses the themes from that symphony to great effect. It is more of an orchestral fantasy with piano, nevertheless.

[anda]

Pieces written for the LH alone should be played with the LH alone.  Period.

agreed. but i did sight-read the ravel lh using both hands 

[DarkWind]

You should not play the Ravel L. H. Concerto with both hands. Fact is, using both hands makes it more difficult, and use lose a lot of the element that you had when using the left hand, such as the fact that the thumb is the top finger and can carry the voice more efficiently. And many other technical problems are more easily solved by just using one hand.

[lostinidlewonder]

Using both hands makes it hell easier actually. But you are ruining the intention of the music. It was written for a guy who lost his arm in a war, so i think you must do it with one hand for that. Also i think you have to do it for the impressive factor, people must realise that one hand must have the illusion of many.

[BoliverAllmon]

Using both hands makes it hell easier actually. But you are ruining the intention of the music. It was written for a guy who lost his arm in a war, so i think you must do it with one hand for that. Also i think you have to do it for the impressive factor, people must realise that one hand must have the illusion of many.

I actually watched someone perform this concerto with her RH. it bothered me that she did this.

[edouard]

Hello,

I agree, it should be forbidden to use two hands for this concerto. THe challenge from a technical point of view for the composer was evidently to give a 'two hands' effect using only one, and IMO it would be betraying the composer's intentions to use both hands.
Also one discovers a lot about one's left hand studying this concerto. (especially the final cadenza).
However, I seem to remember that Cortot transcribed a version for two hands. But as far as I understand this is a DIFFERENT version. ie expanded to fit the capabilities of two hands. Whether you're interested in this is a matter of taste.

Finally may I warmly recommend the Scriabin prelude Op9 n.1 as a great introduction to left hand music. Typically early Scriabin (well as far as I know from all that I've heard - ie. quite a lot but not an expert either) reminiscent of his other pieces of that time.

I would also like to recommend Saint Saens's late 6 etudes for the left hand. These are virtually unplayed. They are manageable technically though harder than the Scriabin, and are harmonically quite conventional if not traditional. Also they are not too long. I like them quite a lot. They reflect SS's interest for 17th century music: cf: 'Gigue' and 'Bourree'

Then you have the Bach - Brahms transcription of the Chaconne in D minor from the second violin partita which IMO is great, but much more of a challenge because of:
-its length (about 14 mins)
-its repetitiveness (ie theme, 30 variations, theme, 30 variations, theme, coda - if I count correctly)
-its technical complexity: I would say it is generally manageable until the end of the first D minor section which then requires very solid technique especially while stretched. From memory, Cortot grades this as: articulation: 'tres difficile', stretch 'tres difficile', double notes (no significant challenge), scales 'difficle', wrist/ octaves 'nothing in particular'. However I love this version and it has really improved my left hand playing. I plan to perform it asap.
The fun thing with this is when you hear afterhand the busoni version and think: 'well, the difference isn't actually that big!!' or 'in some parts the Brahms actually sounds nicer!' :-)

As for the Godowsky, most are 'superior' in terms of difficulty, and extremely hard to pull off convincingly in concert. If you want to try a first one I would recommend the Op.10 No.3.

yours,

Edouard

[pianonut]

i'd like to hear a transcription for left hand of the brandenburg concerto.  you know, i've heard of two left hand concertos (where two people sit side by side and only play with their left hands).  that might be interesting.