Hermosa composición musical de Piotr Ilich Tchaikovsky poco apreciada por el público y a la mayoría de sus admiradores en particular. Considero un logro del autor por su alto contenido romántico propio que parecen acercarlo a Chopin y Beethoven brevemente como un suave remanso discurriendo en un tranquilo prado antes de adquirir impulso para volverse torrente. Bellísima creación para artistas de excelente calidad. Agradezco el esfuerzo de todos por haber disfrutado de esta presentación.
I just recently found this piece, and it is now one of my favorites, with interesting, almost jazz sounding elements, a foreshadow of what a certain Gershwin would write later. Wonderfully played!
I cannot understand why this brilliant and beautiful Tchaikovsky piece is not more valued and performed. It stands perfectly well as a single-movement work and is to be preferred to Taneyev's version with his completed extra two movements. That said, this is as good an interpretation as I have seen or heard. Special praise to the pianist, of course, but the conductor and orchestra give her excellent support. The recent Matsuev rendition is too fast, and the classic Gilels one, too slow (both on UTube). Here, the pacing, and everything else, seems just right.
You sir sound like you are the ultimsate expert on "all things Tschaikovsky". Am I right or not? Why do you think that he wrote such a short one movement concerto? And just what do you think about his earlier two piano concerti anyway?
I think cause his 1st concerto succeded sooo hard,its famous as hell,everyone knows this openning theme and hammer chords..i think that's why his 2nd and 3rd awesome but 1st is just beyond this world..IMHO
Un brillante, transparente y profunda interpretacion de este hermoso concierto que pocas veces escuchamos y que reune ampliamente al sentimiento de Rusia en su gran embajador. Desde Argentina. Gracias.
All it would take is for major motion picture to feature the theme several times and suddenly this video would be swamped with people saying "I'm here because I just saw [insert film name]. It's so beautiful!"
By the way, I'm not saying that's bad, it's just that many classical compositions end up getting attention this way now. Think of some of Benjamin Britten's works after Moonrise Kingdom came out. Some pieces that had maybe 1,000 views, suddenly ballooned up to 95,000 views etc.
Everything that could be desired in the presentation of this piece is here. The playing is as good as it could possibly be, but also the sound and camera work is superb. Bravo to all!!!
All of which can, and should be said about the concerto itself. One movement it may be, but WHAT a movement. The only regrettable thing about it was that Tchaikovski wasn’t granted the time to complete it.
This was a wonderful performance by soloist and orchestra. Very exciting and passionate. I have been watching the Balanchine ballet Allegro Brilliante set to this music on youtube and grew to love the music. This was the first time I heard the orchestra and soloist playing alone. It has already become one of my favorite pieces. I can't believe that such a masterpiece could be overlooked, yet I have never been aware of it being played in NY in the past 40 years. A shame.
Bravo! The "jazzy" rhythms were beautifully articulated in a thoroughly engaging performance. The introspective lyrical moments in the extended cadenza ( which was Tchaikovsky's response to Taneyev's verdict that it needed to be more virtuosic) were handled most expressively.
The Third Piano Concerto is actually an arrangement of his unfinished Symphony in E flat major, begun shortly before the Symphony in B minor ("Pathetic") and carried on for some time along with it and then abandoned. This is "self-plagiarism" to the same extent as Brahms' First Piano Concerto, also derived from an abandoned symphony, is "self-plagiarism". It's such a foolish statement that it doesn't deserve any comment. Composing music is not a divinatory activity, it is largely an "artisanal" job and the inspiration is also the result of one's craft as an artisan. The artisans tend to waste as little as possible... If we want, Tchaikovsky's third concert has two "defects", the piano part is difficult, sometimes even very difficult but not very virtuosic, with the piano often completely "integrated" into the orchestra, the solution that the composer finds to overcome this problem is write a very long solo cadenza, which however sounds a little out of place. Does the concert have no "melody"? But if it is full of melodies it is so rich that it becomes difficult to fix a single one in the memory. For the rest it has a rather mysterious history, to the point that it is difficult to even say whether it is a finished or unfinished composition, certainly Tchaikovsky initially wanted to write a concert in three movements, then he thought of using only the first movement as "Konzertstucke" (concerts in one movement were trnendy in those years in France and Germany), in the end he probably thought of returning to the three-movement form, so on the completed autograph score he wrote "First movement", but, because of his sudden death, he failed to complete the other two movements (he seems to have been very dissatisfied with the ending) nor to write two totally new ones. Perhaps it is not an absolute masterpiece like the first concert, but the only completed movement from the point of view of the melodic material and its elaboration is certainly better than the Allegro brilliant of the Second Piano Concerto. The treatment of the piano as an instrument integrated into the sound fabric of the movement is also very modern and anticipates Rachmaninov (second Piano Concerto) and Prokofiev.
Très bien interprété la pianiste et orchestre ! Je découvre ce concerto , au début un peu étonnée et vite séduite .....Mais je reste une fan du deuxième joué par cet adorable Alexandre Kantorow je suis en admiration devant ses mains aux doigts magnifiques ! Bonne chance Alexandre tu nous donnes tant avec ton talent ........
Il y a aujourd'hui d'excellents interprètes du deuxième concerto : Kantorow en est un, mais il a d'illustres prédécesseurs, Michael Pletnev et surtout Igor Joukov, pour moi inégalé dans cette œuvre.
This concerto is taking its origins from the musical material originally planned for a Symphony in E-flat major (later in the 1950s during the reconstruction process numbered as No. 7 and subtitled as ’Life’). Also perhaps due to the unfinished nature of the concerto (Tchaikovsky’s composing student Sergey Taneyev’s orchestrated and finished the remaining second and third movements after the composer’s death) the work has not reached the popularity of the 1st and 2nd (and the latter is still far too underrated, imo). Excellent performance, though, captures very well the emotions within the music. Thanks a lot!
I agree, however the concerto was completed by Tchaikovsky, because there exists the autograph (270 pages) of the arrangement made by the composer himself for two pianos of the full 3 movements, one being the solo part and the second piano part being the orchestra. He couldn´t orchestrate the second and last movements because he had to go to Petersburg to start rehearsing the pathetique. So the only task of Taneyev was to orchestrate them, based on the second piano part written by Tchaikovsky.
Es una pena que no se toque la versión completa en 3 movimientos. El segundo movimiento es especialmente memorable. Tchaikovsky completó tanto el segundo como el tercer movimiento en un arreglo para dos pianos (la parte del primer piano era la parte solista completa) que hizo antes de emprender la orquestación del concierto. Como la fecha del estreno de la "Patética" se acercaba, tuvo que viajar a San Petersburgo para iniciar los ensayos y sólo pudo completar la orquestación del primer movimiento. Después Taneyev orquestó esos movimientos siguiendo la parte del segundo piano en el arreglo del propio Tchaikovsky.
Excelente e ilustrativo comentario. Desconocía que P. I. T. hubiera escrito un 3er concierto. Siempre hay lugar para conocer y aprender algo más. Felicitaciones
@@aaronjorgefridman5662 Y la Fantasía de Concierto op. 56 es también sobresaliente. Hay un video en UA-cam con una orquesta juvenil italiana y con un solista italiano, bastante buena versión. Como bis el pianista toca la Romanza en Fa mayor, op 51, que es una belleza.
Can you send me the source for knowing that all 3 movements were in fact completed for 2 pianos? It will help if you know where to find this autograph of the full 3 movements for two pianos.
@@ikeezike7602 The source is an article by Harry Hailbrech in the booklet of the recording of the 3rd piano concerto in the Accord seal by pianist Hoteev in 1993. It explains that exists an autograph of the sketches of the 3 movements, and the last page is the ending of the second movement, because Tchaikovsky composed it last. It was on 1 july and on 10 july he completed the reduction for 2 pianos with the mention "firmly in black" that Tchaikovsky used to indicate that there were orchestral details on it. I read that this autograph is in the Klin Museum. In the catalogue by Poznansky, the author states that there are 30 pages of rough drafts of the first movement and the first part of the finale, and also aditional 29 pages drafts of the complete first movement and the central section of the andante and the second part of the finale. Extra 18 pages of the draft of the andante also exist. At the end of this andante draft (there is a photo of this last bars in the booklet) it is written in russian: "Completely finshed the concerto in rough at Ukolovo, 10 july 1893".
I absolutely ADORE this recording - so overflowing with vitality and unexpectedly American syncopations and blue notes! I wish you would record the remaining two movements - I once read that Tchaikovsky's original intentions are preserved in the form of a version for piano four hands - that might perhaps be the most authentic choice.
I actually like with Taneyev’s orchestrations of the Andante and Finale. They may not be authentic, but if Tchaikovsky had lived more than two weeks after requesting that the first movement be published alone, I believe that he would fully orchestrate the remaining movements. I believe that his claim that the first movement is too weighty by itself is actually unwarranted. The first movements of both this concerto’s predecessors are each individually longer than the entirety of the single-movement Third, and the Third is outwardly less bombastic than either of them.
Taneyev’s orchestrations also hearken back to the respective movements of No. 2. Tchaikovsky, for his part, blends the piano and orchestra (he admitted that he didn’t like the sound of piano and orchestra together) more deftly in his first movement than he does in No. 2, creating a movement parallel in structure with No. 2 but requiring the orchestra to play alone far less and thereby condensing the movement. With the Taneyev’s movements added, the concerto has the feeling of accomplishing what No. 2 set out to do, but doing it better. That’s just my opinion when I listen to Tchaikovsky/Taneyev No. 3 immediately after No. 2.
Great work by the orchestra and soloist - a really exciting live performance. I agree with Myaskofiev below that it is much better than the Gilels recording, where he ruins the piece completely by slowing down for the coda. Matsuev screws it up, period. And such a welcome change from the 1st p.c. that has been beaten into bloody oblivion in hundreds of "International piano competitions" because the jurors and orchestras are too lazy to depart from "standard" reportoire. There is no sign of that changing, unfortunately.
Injustement méconnu, ce magnifique mouvement orchestral appartient à la dernière partie de la vie de l'illustre musicien. Le concerto dans son ensemble, en trois mouvements, a été reconstitué et existe en version discographique.
I've never been convinced of the wisdom of this recasting by the composer of what was originally conceived as the first movement of a symphony. The thematic material is not particularly pianistic, and the piano writing throughout is perfunctory and unimaginative. Everytime I listen to Bogatyrev's reconstruction of what used to be called Tchaikovsky's 7th symphony, I'm convinced that Tchaikovsky's original symphonic conception was the correct one.
Yes, finally someone has the wisdom and courage to point out that this was conceived and intended (by Tchaikovsky) to be a symphonic work, not a piano concerto. All those praises and adoration for this lost cause of Tchaikovsky's "Piano Concerto No. 3" are as dubious as those for the so-called Beethoven's "10th Symphony".
I wonder why people continue to try to bring life to this stillborn concerto? Tchaikovsky himself didn't take it terribly seriously and the 'sketches' that exist have very little to do with what happens in this realization. I applaud the pianist for taking it on but why not learn the much better (and by Tchaikovsky!) Concert Fantasia instead?
This "realization " is by Tchaikovsky himself. He reworked his sketches an completed every measure of this himself. You may not like it, but get your facts straight.
@@remomazzetti8757 I have been studying the life and music of Tchaikovsky for more than 50 years. I have a blog and I've written articles for many peer-reviewed publications. Tanyev finished this concerto from tentative and fragmented notes by Tchaikovsky, which information you can learn from any CD notes from this awful piece. May I suggest you get your facts straight...?
Fallen in love at the first listening to this concerto in the late 1980s. 30 years later, I found this love remaining intact.
Hermosa composición musical de Piotr Ilich Tchaikovsky poco apreciada por el público y a la mayoría de sus admiradores en particular. Considero un logro del autor por su alto contenido romántico propio que parecen acercarlo a Chopin y Beethoven brevemente como un suave remanso discurriendo en un tranquilo prado antes de adquirir impulso para volverse torrente. Bellísima creación para artistas de excelente calidad. Agradezco el esfuerzo de todos por haber disfrutado de esta presentación.
Pyotr illich, que amalgama de sonidos ! Te arrastra........bueno hasta el cabello de la pianista esta bonito !!
An explosion of energy and emotions!
I just recently found this piece, and it is now one of my favorites, with interesting, almost jazz sounding elements, a foreshadow of what a certain Gershwin would write later. Wonderfully played!
♥️♥️♥️ I agree!
I cannot understand why this brilliant and beautiful Tchaikovsky piece is not more valued and performed. It stands perfectly well as a single-movement work and is to be preferred to Taneyev's version with his completed extra two movements. That said, this is as good an interpretation as I have seen or heard. Special praise to the pianist, of course, but the conductor and orchestra give her excellent support. The recent Matsuev rendition is too fast, and the classic Gilels one, too slow (both on UTube). Here, the pacing, and everything else, seems just right.
Myaskofiev Because is bad. All the tunes are stolen of diferent composers, and the "bridges" to these are ridiculous.
You sir sound like you are the ultimsate expert on "all things Tschaikovsky". Am I right or not? Why do you think that he wrote such a short one movement concerto? And just what do you think about his earlier two piano concerti anyway?
@@adriatorras8077 what do you mean? Are you saying that this concert is a sort of big Tczajkowsky's plagiarism of other works?
I think cause his 1st concerto succeded sooo hard,its famous as hell,everyone knows this openning theme and hammer chords..i think that's why his 2nd and 3rd awesome but 1st is just beyond this world..IMHO
@@adriatorras8077 From whom?
medicine to keep me sane, during this draconian lockdown in South Africa....thank you!!
Un brillante, transparente y profunda interpretacion de este hermoso concierto que pocas veces escuchamos y que reune ampliamente al sentimiento de Rusia en su gran embajador. Desde Argentina. Gracias.
This a great performance of Tchaikovsky at his best.
The BEST performance of this great piece that I have heard. I LOVE the synergy between pianist and orchestra.
WOW!! She is the spitting image of my daughter. Tremendous performance young Lady!!!plese give us more!!
Such a marvelous piece and fantastic performance! Thanks for uploading this video! Bravo to the soloist and orchestra!! Bravo!!
Great performance! (And good sound quality in this recording too) This has introduced me to a work of Tchaikovsky's I never knew about.
Majestically, passionately, and beautifully played by the soloist. Hope this concerto will be performed more in the future too.
All it would take is for major motion picture to feature the theme several times and suddenly this video would be swamped with people saying "I'm here because I just saw [insert film name]. It's so beautiful!"
By the way, I'm not saying that's bad, it's just that many classical compositions end up getting attention this way now. Think of some of Benjamin Britten's works after Moonrise Kingdom came out. Some pieces that had maybe 1,000 views, suddenly ballooned up to 95,000 views etc.
Everything that could be desired in the presentation of this piece is here. The playing is as good as it could possibly be, but also the sound and camera work is superb. Bravo to all!!!
All of which can, and should be said about the concerto itself. One movement it may be, but WHAT a movement. The only regrettable thing about it was that Tchaikovski wasn’t granted the time to complete it.
This was a wonderful performance by soloist and orchestra. Very exciting and passionate. I have been watching the Balanchine ballet Allegro Brilliante set to this music on youtube and grew to love the music. This was the first time I heard the orchestra and soloist playing alone. It has already become one of my favorite pieces. I can't believe that such a masterpiece could be overlooked, yet I have never been aware of it being played in NY in the past 40 years. A shame.
Brava!!! I love the way the piano resonates and leads.. A very powerful rendering!
Quel son et quelle formidable interprétation pour ce concerto injustement peu connu, bravo à l'orchestre, à son chef et la prodigieuse pianiste!!!!
Je souscris !
Bravo! The "jazzy" rhythms were beautifully articulated in a thoroughly engaging performance. The introspective lyrical moments in the extended cadenza ( which was Tchaikovsky's response to Taneyev's verdict that it needed to be more virtuosic) were handled most expressively.
SHE IS A BRILLIANT and WONDERFUL PIANIST!!!
THank you!
An extremely sensitive rendering.....BRAVO!
Una interpretación extraordinaria de una gran obra injustamente relegada. Y qué gran realización de Antonio Cid!
obra maravilhosa! linda interpretação!!
Maravillosa orquesta, Director y ejecutante.
Gracias!
Yes this surely is the best version I have ever heard ,BRAVA!
Thank you!
No lo conocia , ... otra joya...
The Third Piano Concerto is actually an arrangement of his unfinished Symphony in E flat major, begun shortly before the Symphony in B minor ("Pathetic") and carried on for some time along with it and then abandoned. This is "self-plagiarism" to the same extent as Brahms' First Piano Concerto, also derived from an abandoned symphony, is "self-plagiarism". It's such a foolish statement that it doesn't deserve any comment. Composing music is not a divinatory activity, it is largely an "artisanal" job and the inspiration is also the result of one's craft as an artisan. The artisans tend to waste as little as possible...
If we want, Tchaikovsky's third concert has two "defects", the piano part is difficult, sometimes even very difficult but not very virtuosic, with the piano often completely "integrated" into the orchestra, the solution that the composer finds to overcome this problem is write a very long solo cadenza, which however sounds a little out of place. Does the concert have no "melody"? But if it is full of melodies it is so rich that it becomes difficult to fix a single one in the memory. For the rest it has a rather mysterious history, to the point that it is difficult to even say whether it is a finished or unfinished composition, certainly Tchaikovsky initially wanted to write a concert in three movements, then he thought of using only the first movement as "Konzertstucke" (concerts in one movement were trnendy in those years in France and Germany), in the end he probably thought of returning to the three-movement form, so on the completed autograph score he wrote "First movement", but, because of his sudden death, he failed to complete the other two movements (he seems to have been very dissatisfied with the ending) nor to write two totally new ones. Perhaps it is not an absolute masterpiece like the first concert, but the only completed movement from the point of view of the melodic material and its elaboration is certainly better than the Allegro brilliant of the Second Piano Concerto. The treatment of the piano as an instrument integrated into the sound fabric of the movement is also very modern and anticipates Rachmaninov (second Piano Concerto) and Prokofiev.
Très bien interprété la pianiste et orchestre ! Je découvre ce concerto , au début un peu étonnée et vite séduite .....Mais je reste une fan du deuxième joué par cet adorable Alexandre Kantorow je suis en admiration devant ses mains aux doigts magnifiques ! Bonne chance Alexandre tu nous donnes tant avec ton talent ........
@Jeb Clar Chacun ses goûts
Il y a aujourd'hui d'excellents interprètes du deuxième concerto : Kantorow en est un, mais il a d'illustres prédécesseurs, Michael Pletnev et surtout Igor Joukov, pour moi inégalé dans cette œuvre.
This concerto is taking its origins from the musical material originally planned for a Symphony in E-flat major (later in the 1950s during the reconstruction process numbered as No. 7 and subtitled as ’Life’). Also perhaps due to the unfinished nature of the concerto (Tchaikovsky’s composing student Sergey Taneyev’s orchestrated and finished the remaining second and third movements after the composer’s death) the work has not reached the popularity of the 1st and 2nd (and the latter is still far too underrated, imo). Excellent performance, though, captures very well the emotions within the music. Thanks a lot!
I agree, however the concerto was completed by Tchaikovsky, because there exists the autograph (270 pages) of the arrangement made by the composer himself for two pianos of the full 3 movements, one being the solo part and the second piano part being the orchestra. He couldn´t orchestrate the second and last movements because he had to go to Petersburg to start rehearsing the pathetique. So the only task of Taneyev was to orchestrate them, based on the second piano part written by Tchaikovsky.
@@felipeeduardodelarosabocan2356this is a revelation!!!😮
Великолепно!)))
wow! those sequencs with suspensions sound so Brahmsian! even the orchestration in those spots have the brahms quality! Great performance!
Es una pena que no se toque la versión completa en 3 movimientos. El segundo movimiento es especialmente memorable. Tchaikovsky completó tanto el segundo como el tercer movimiento en un arreglo para dos pianos (la parte del primer piano era la parte solista completa) que hizo antes de emprender la orquestación del concierto. Como la fecha del estreno de la "Patética" se acercaba, tuvo que viajar a San Petersburgo para iniciar los ensayos y sólo pudo completar la orquestación del primer movimiento. Después Taneyev orquestó esos movimientos siguiendo la parte del segundo piano en el arreglo del propio Tchaikovsky.
Excelente e ilustrativo comentario. Desconocía que P. I. T. hubiera escrito un 3er concierto. Siempre hay lugar para conocer y aprender algo más. Felicitaciones
@@aaronjorgefridman5662 Y la Fantasía de Concierto op. 56 es también sobresaliente. Hay un video en UA-cam con una orquesta juvenil italiana y con un solista italiano, bastante buena versión. Como bis el pianista toca la Romanza en Fa mayor, op 51, que es una belleza.
Can you send me the source for knowing that all 3 movements were in fact completed for 2 pianos? It will help if you know where to find this autograph of the full 3 movements for two pianos.
@@ikeezike7602 The source is an article by Harry Hailbrech in the booklet of the recording of the 3rd piano concerto in the Accord seal by pianist Hoteev in 1993. It explains that exists an autograph of the sketches of the 3 movements, and the last page is the ending of the second movement, because Tchaikovsky composed it last. It was on 1 july and on 10 july he completed the reduction for 2 pianos with the mention "firmly in black" that Tchaikovsky used to indicate that there were orchestral details on it. I read that this autograph is in the Klin Museum. In the catalogue by Poznansky, the author states that there are 30 pages of rough drafts of the first movement and the first part of the finale, and also aditional 29 pages drafts of the complete first movement and the central section of the andante and the second part of the finale. Extra 18 pages of the draft of the andante also exist. At the end of this andante draft (there is a photo of this last bars in the booklet) it is written in russian: "Completely finshed the concerto in rough at Ukolovo, 10 july 1893".
@@felipeeduardodelarosabocan2356 okay wow. Thank you for the Very insightful information!
Desconocía la mera existencia de este 3er concierto, que evidentemente quedó trunco, incompleto. No es facil reconocer aquí aTchaicovsky
A croire que vous ne connaissez pas l'illustre compositeur : tout ici respire sa musique.
I absolutely ADORE this recording - so overflowing with vitality and unexpectedly American syncopations and blue notes! I wish you would record the remaining two movements - I once read that Tchaikovsky's original intentions are preserved in the form of a version for piano four hands - that might perhaps be the most authentic choice.
Thank you!!
I actually like with Taneyev’s orchestrations of the Andante and Finale. They may not be authentic, but if Tchaikovsky had lived more than two weeks after requesting that the first movement be published alone, I believe that he would fully orchestrate the remaining movements. I believe that his claim that the first movement is too weighty by itself is actually unwarranted. The first movements of both this concerto’s predecessors are each individually longer than the entirety of the single-movement Third, and the Third is outwardly less bombastic than either of them.
Taneyev’s orchestrations also hearken back to the respective movements of No. 2. Tchaikovsky, for his part, blends the piano and orchestra (he admitted that he didn’t like the sound of piano and orchestra together) more deftly in his first movement than he does in No. 2, creating a movement parallel in structure with No. 2 but requiring the orchestra to play alone far less and thereby condensing the movement. With the Taneyev’s movements added, the concerto has the feeling of accomplishing what No. 2 set out to do, but doing it better. That’s just my opinion when I listen to Tchaikovsky/Taneyev No. 3 immediately after No. 2.
Maravilloso estupendo ni que decir tiene demasiado
Rarely performed. Which is sad, it is very much Tchaikovsky in one concise concerto.
Bravos 👏👏👏
Great work by the orchestra and soloist - a really exciting live performance. I agree with Myaskofiev below that it is much better than the Gilels recording, where he ruins the piece completely by slowing down for the coda. Matsuev screws it up, period. And such a welcome change from the 1st p.c. that has been beaten into bloody oblivion in hundreds of "International piano competitions" because the jurors and orchestras are too lazy to depart from "standard" reportoire. There is no sign of that changing, unfortunately.
damn I got the chills at 10:48
Yes daddy
@@SmegmaMale_ oh god
La cadencia de piano es una genialidad. Comienza a los 8 minutos.
Injustement méconnu, ce magnifique mouvement orchestral appartient à la dernière partie de la vie de l'illustre musicien. Le concerto dans son ensemble, en trois mouvements, a été reconstitué et existe en version discographique.
у него был третий концерт?
I've never been convinced of the wisdom of this recasting by the composer of what was originally conceived as the first movement of a symphony. The thematic material is not particularly pianistic, and the piano writing throughout is perfunctory and unimaginative. Everytime I listen to Bogatyrev's reconstruction of what used to be called Tchaikovsky's 7th symphony, I'm convinced that Tchaikovsky's original symphonic conception was the correct one.
Yes, finally someone has the wisdom and courage to point out that this was conceived and intended (by Tchaikovsky) to be a symphonic work, not a piano concerto. All those praises and adoration for this lost cause of Tchaikovsky's "Piano Concerto No. 3" are as dubious as those for the so-called Beethoven's "10th Symphony".
8:15 am I the only who recognize the beethoven patetique sonate in this
3:47 bravo
I wonder why people continue to try to bring life to this stillborn concerto? Tchaikovsky himself didn't take it terribly seriously and the 'sketches' that exist have very little to do with what happens in this realization. I applaud the pianist for taking it on but why not learn the much better (and by Tchaikovsky!) Concert Fantasia instead?
This "realization " is by Tchaikovsky himself. He reworked his sketches an completed every measure of this himself. You may not like it, but get your facts straight.
@@remomazzetti8757 I have been studying the life and music of Tchaikovsky for more than 50 years. I have a blog and I've written articles for many peer-reviewed publications. Tanyev finished this concerto from tentative and fragmented notes by Tchaikovsky, which information you can learn from any CD notes from this awful piece. May I suggest you get your facts straight...?
Imagínate cómo se dedeara 😳
9:30-9:50 Chopin's Revolutionary Etude: ua-cam.com/video/w2vLEQno9Ks/v-deo.html
Orchestra 소리가 Piano를 압도해서 균형이 안맞다. Piano가 묻혀서 답답하다.
con un poco mas de compromiso emocional , se veria mejor . more emotional compromise woud be needed
Vietnam 🌶 grandpa 🌶