Can you believe that the reception of this Concerto was terrible. Rachmaninoff rewrote it twice to "improve it". Either these were some major rewrites, or early 20-th century music critics were utter shite!
Rachmaninov was dissatisfied with the original version. He condemned it for showiness at the expense of technique. In addition he also made significant revisions to the first and third concertos, and most famously of all the sonatas in b flat and d for solo piano.
The nature of Rachmaninoff's revisions differ in the case. To my knowledge, Rachmaninoff never touched either the 2nd Concerto or the Rhapsodie once they were published. The revisions of the First Concerto were compositional improvements of what was essentially a student piece. The work was actually substantially recomposed. He made short cuts to the Third Concerto (as he did to the Second Symphony) but they are simply deletions of small connecting tissue - mostly short discursive segments. These were not changed in the published score, however. He made the cuts in his own recording but most people now play the score uncut, with perhaps the single exception being a repeated measure in the cadenza that sort of sounds like the record skipped. Musically speaking, it's kind of a hiccup. The Fourth Concerto was a whole other matter. The original (which has only recently been published and recorded) REALLY is discursive in many spots and tends to go on and on. Those spots are really nice, but what they do is to impede the forward momentum in many places. Before he initially published it near the end of the 1920s he made a number of cuts. But it really didn't solve the problem. It was only in his last years that he had the courage to go through it again and make MAJOR cuts throughout and then compose patches to connect the remaining phrases. This is the version he recorded but the score was published only after his death. So, all three versions have been recorded and scores published but I have to say, having lived with the piece for more than a half century, even though I like some of the cut material, the work is more successful as a work in its last revision. But that's my opinion for whatever it's worth. But it was also Rachmaninoff's.
Rachmaninoff actually received a lot of criticism for his first three, mainly because of how romantic they were in which forced him to create a different style with jazz elements (this information was given to me by my piano teacher). If anyone has any more knowledge, please tell.
This piece is absolutely mind boggling. U hear it the first time and think nah not as good as the other 3. Then it’s sticks with you for some reason and u listen to it more. After about the 4 th time listening u realise wow. This might even be the best Rachmaninoff piano concerto. I’d really love to understand biologically why this happens ?
Ollie Martinelli You probably notice more and more detail with each listening, skewing an initially cool perception towards one of interest and, ultimately, a deep enjoyment of the piece. The more we learn by repeated exposure to something the more we accustom ourselves to it - and hence may even start liking it. I’m no biologist so I can’t answer for that...
It certainly is different from his others. Russians get it on the first listen. You are genetically fine if you get it on the 4th time, head up. After the 4th, not so much.
I had that but even more extreme with the Prokofiev toccata the first time I heard it I was like this is really had it sounds like a child smashing the keys but then as I listened to it again I heard more and more melodies and now I love the piece!
It's amazing that Michelangeli recorded no other piece of Rachmaninoff, not even the shortest prelude, but his least favourite work for piano and orchestra. So far as I know, this is a unique case of close artistic rapport between a great composer, a single work of his and a legendary performer.
I also find that amazing, 2 Italians gave the very best performance of a Russian work which shows you how universal Rachmaninoff is. This recording is my favorite concerto recording in all of music.
Well, it is not amazing if we are talking about Michelangeli. His personality and playing style is far away from the raws emotions emanated from Rachmaninov's music. Probably Michelangeli was asked to play Rachmaninov, and decided to play this underplayed and more modern piano concerto....it fits perfectally well to Benedetti's musical view 🤔
@@kaleidoscopio5 Very good point! That also explains why Michelangeli recorded Ravel's Pf concerto along with Rach #4. No other pianist dared to record Rach & Ravel side by side -- yet, Michelangeli did play them so naturally and beautifully.
This is an awesome concerto. No matter what many people think. This is as good as any other Rachs Concerto. It has awesome memorable melodies, interesting orchestrations and a huge impact on the listener.
@@trebleclef9844 i wouldent map those qualities to something "mature". imma be real "maturity" in a composition sounds like a buzzword people use to sound smart, their definitions are also probably not consistent with how the other guy uses the word
18:00 - 18:42 - One of my favorite moments of all Rachmaninoff's works. Immense grief and nostalgia for his homeland. These descending chromatic chords (A-flat to G) at 18:32 literally give an effect of screaming.
Funny thing is I’ve heard this type of thing in his 3rd concerto and he probably used the same idea for many other pieces. It just reminds me of the 3rd concerto first
The second movement is one of the most beautiful and satisfying in all of Western music. Especially at 14:35 until the end of the movement. UNREAL!! Gets me every time!!
Absolutely. I've always thought this and am delighted to find someone else who thinks so too. From the "Come Prima" (~14:00) are a few sublime minutes, a bit like the euphoria of the 18th variation as it detumesces into the next idea. One wonders whether this is "the meaning of life" expressed in music. This whole work is such evolutionary milestone even from the 3rd and perhaps my favourite of all.
The passage at 14:35 also appears in Rachmaninov's 1911 Etudes-Tableaux Op.33, at the end of No. 3, if any of you want to hear it again in another context. Although I personally prefer how it's presented here.
@@autoremix4798 It's a wonderful example of "self plagiarism". I tend to think that R. was so enamoured of that phrase that he felt it would get wider exposure in a concerto, than just as a piece for solo piano. And it sounds so glorious, played by a cello section!
I'm Russian musical college student (pianist). As far as I know, in my class practically nobody knows about 4th Rachmaninoff concerto. 5-6 peoole knows 2nd and 3rd concertos. I don't know why because I think that this concerto is very important in Rachmaninoff's music repertoire. (Sorry for bad English 😅)
Smiling Chanel История Рахманинова действительно эмоциональна. Он знал Чайковского в молодости как наставник и восторженный сторонник. Он был опустошен смертью Чайковского в 1893 году. Он уехал из России в США во время коммунистической революции. Его грустная музыка отражает тот факт, что он скучал по своей русской родине до конца своей жизни. Это моя любимая пьеса Рахманинова, особенно медленное движение. Forgive to Google translate по-Русский
I was listening before this Concerto, but not with head phones on high volume. It is so big difference in the way you feel it , because sounds goes directly to your brain and deep to your body... it is so deep impact of music to whole body, mind, spirit. The Concerto completely flooded everything. It is like water that swallows everything. So powerful concerto and brilliant performance of Michelangeli. Michelangeli is a storm and so much passion inside... Still waters run deep...
Classical music have to be listened live or from speakers, not as techno over headphones in 100% volume that makes distortion and unnatural perception.
Michelangeli is simply unmatched in the 22:22-22:47 section. He knows precisely what articulation to apply and is keenly aware of the overall direction of this passage, in terms of dynamics, pressing the gas pedal and then pumping the brakes at the right moments to build excitement in a passage often reduced to disjointed block chords. It also makes complete sense why Michelangeli chose to pair this piano concerto with Ravel’s G Major piano concerto. I can’t help but wonder whether or not Michelangeli is trying to draw some parallels between the two. Especially in the third movements, both are endowed with long virtuosic passages that build excitement and then suddenly transition into other passages with dramatically different textures and harmonies that also build excitement such as at 22:46. Michelangeli, as well as the orchestra applies very similar interpretations in these transitions, with the use of subito piano to sort of “reset” the excitement. I feel like this is at the essence of what the composers are trying to achieve: how to retain excitement over long periods of time without coming off as tedious. Michelangeli and the orchestra have recognized this and are doing justice to composers’ intentions.
It's definitely in the top tier of R4s, imo. Don't laugh, folks, but another one I really like is Phillipe Entremont's, w/ Ormandy and the Boys. Free on UA-cam. Columbia Records' heyday. He keeps it rhythmically together, difficult in a lot of Rachmaninoff ( Rhapsody was hardest thing I ever encountered in my brief orchestral phase in life and we had a solid soloist, Brazilian Flavio Varani) and that lower register growl in Mvt I comes through as unmistakeably as a bullet train. Lots of pianists or recording people gloss over it. Gives me gooseflesh every time I hear PE in this passage. Like Ormandy he doesn't get enough respect. He also has a Debussy Printemps w/ the Denver orchestra , he conducted, on an inexpensive label ( cant remember) not to miss. Super talented and deserves a fresh hearing from people who likely knew less about classical music then than now, not to be condescending but it might have been meant that way eh. Interesting, to me at least, aside, the one live performance I've heard of the Fourth was a great disappointment, Garrick Ohlsson. Capable but dull and I had a good seat. Not his forte or not his night. Maybe he was less than enthusiastic about spending the weekend in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Dunno . It was Bychkov's orchestra ( until some people spoke out) so it wasn't like they were programming The Syncopated Clock or Victory at Sea.
My feeling is simply that Rachmaninoff was deeply spiritual and introspective and expressed it through his great musical gifts. Russia has an incredible history of gifted artists, writers, musicians, scientists. No composer speaks to me as did Rachmaninoff, from another dimension it seems he worked.
Jessica Kespohl what about Wagner? Of course you cant really compare a piano concerto with an Opera but just in case you have never listened to music of Wagner you should give it a try!!
Just*64 No offence, but this view of Russia is deeply shallow. Communism=difficult life=depth of introspection, feeling, etc.? What about the deep introspective works of Tchaikovsky (died in 1893, before communism ever sprouted up), what about Pushkin (died 1837), what about the numerous saints that lived all throughout the ages since the 10th century and philosophised on existence? They were also deeply spiritual and introspective... It’s a factor of the way of life, not of one short age which was nonetheless very important in Russian history as a whole.
The third movement has something highly magical about it. I can't even describe it; it's so catchy and somehow feels like an old mystery movie or something.
The last part of the 4 concerto reminds me of Gershwin's piano concerto. If cancer had hot felled him, Rachmaninoff would've moved in a jazz or semi jazz direction IMHO.
This is Rachmaninoff’s last concerto, the reason the last movement particularly is catchy is because he was actually inspired by jazz while composing the third movement specifically, and partially the second one as well, they have some jazz references, as yes, he was alive during the jazz period, and also the “old mystery movie vibe” is also heavily influenced by jazz.
This to me is Rachmaninoff's saddest concerto. Not the majestic thought-provoking tumult of the second concerto, not the towering tolls of the third - but this one... I think more than anything for the briefness, fleetingness of its explicitly melodic and heightened episodes in the midst of a sharpness so unexpected from R.'s early works, and what we'd come to associate with him. Take, for example part of the theme starting at around 2:31 and running through until around 3:26, where it almost feels like a re-thinking of snippets of S.V.R's first concerto's first movement. The culminative theme at 6:21 is almost a re-thinking of the arabesquish themes haunting Rachmaninoff for his whole life, ending in an eruption of what may remind one of the clang of an early-20th-century phone-call. It almost seems to me that the brief return of the main theme of the first movement at 8:32 is a clarified, crystalline, tear-wrenching re-thinking, an attempt to return back to days of youth... The second movement's repetitive main idea is almost like a voyage through a single memory, leading on through several key changes until a dissonative, episode of almost helpless anger. 12:53 feels like a brief memory of parts of the second symphony, until through a tumultous culmination it melts into another episode of inner sadness and resignation starting at 13:38... Brief consolation and a joy of memory in the flute at 14:33 along with the buildup to the memory of Etude Tableaux op. 33 no.3 (as Popo Lala said in one of the comments below). 17:34 begins off a memory of bright, sunlit fields of a homeland Rachmaninoff lost for ever... The D-flat major episode is one of his more inspired melodies in this concerto, and to my mind its beauty is accentuated by its briefness...
Wow. Just wow. Beautiful. To me, though, this is a whimsical reminisce of all his previous pieces, his life, and everything that has happened: joy, sadness, grief, love, hate, and so on.
seems D flat is a very special key for Rachmaninoff. Every one of his concertos has a heartwrenchingly lyrical section in D flat: 1st concerto has a D flat major bit in the cadenza; 2nd concerto has D flat major bit in 3rd movement; 3rd has most of the first half of the 2nd movement, 4th has the only happy bit in the concerto, and Paganini Rhapsody has of course the 18th variation. Corelli variations also have the only happy bit in D flat. Symphonic dances also have D flat major melody in 3rd movement.
One of the underrated composers, N. Medtner should be mentioned in the explanation above. Rachmaninoff dedicated the original version of this Concerto to him.
From start to finish, arguably my favorite of Rach's piano concerto, each movement. The piano displays so much fantasy it almost feels improvised at times. And pianist Michelangelo interprets it all with amazing technique and heart.
I think his farewell was his Third Symphony or the Symphonic Dances. I feel this concerto more like an experiment from a Rachmaninoff that doesn't find his place in the new musical panorama of 20th century or outside of his motherland.
@@dang5874 Symphonic dances in my opinion depicts the start of WW2 and the nazi invasion, and Rachmaninoff being aware that germany might attack the soviet union. But that's just my opinion, but the music really has that mood and motif.
The thing is Rachmaninov never intended what we now know as the 3rd Etude Tableau for publication or public performance. The manuscript was found 4-5 years after his death, maybe he thought that this part was just too good to be wasted in a minor piece - and boy he was right. It works much better here giving a sharp contrast and a sudden rush of quietude after an otherwise melancholic and depressing movement.
Kris9kris, that etude actually has a lot to it. With a melodically dissonant start and a hauntingly calm arpeggio transition, it is a thing of beauty. There is a subtleness to the composition before the part you mention which was integrated into #4. That part is only around 15% of the etude. As a whole, 33/3 is a gorgeous stand-alone composition that I'm glad exists!
Ah, Rach! Everything he wrote is about "yearning." Basically, a melancholy man whose Russian roots are all about estrangement from a way of life that really mattered to him. Ah, Rach! The genius: pianist, composer, conductor. The power of the man is astounding and each of his compositions reflect this genius. Michelangeli captures the brilliance, [the yearning] of the man in his superhuman performance of this masterwork. How I would have liked to hear Rach play this masterwork or at least conduct it.
On third listening I begin to feel what he is saying and how much deeper this is than the first three concertos. The third movement gives me shades of Gershwin but much deeper moments. What a beautiful journey into the mind of a genius.
Banumathi P you sad ignorant soul. when music becomes complex for you find it boring. chopin is great but calling rachmaninov boring is completely untrue.
@@jeremoo Chopin also composed complex music like Grand Polonaise Some Etudes and Rach doesn't even come close to his music.. 😊 I have made my friends (nearly 3 which is harder) listen to classical music by introducing Chopin no one likes Rach..
Michaelangeli plays this flawlessly and the second movement is very pretty. But as with all of Rachy's work, I'm going to have to listen to it a 100 times more, to understand it.
It has been mentioned in the comments, and I agree - the first time I listened to this, I disliked it, although upon revisiting it, I grew to like it a great deal. To all those people who say that this is poor quality, just listen to it again. You will grow into it.
Alex Cordogan I think 4th concerto is more interesting and mystery than 2 & 3. 2nd is the most beautiful and touching ,and 3rd is the most epic piece of Rachmaninoff. All of his concertos are masterpieces.
@@alexcordogan780 The main theme of the 1st movement seems sweeping enough for me, although admittedly it isn't given as much room to breathe as the themes in Rachmaninoff's 2nd and 3rd concertos. Only at the very end does he go "full Rachmaninoff" with it. But the piano part here is as exciting as anything Rachmaninoff ever wrote, though for some reason few (if any) pianists have played it as electrifyingly as Michelangeli does.
Thanks, fantastic! It reminded me a litte of Ravels concerto e voila Benedetti Michelabgeli was the cause, as he recorded an extraordinary rendition of the Ravel concerto.
very interesting!! this piece definitely and felicitously(?) showed Rach's piano concerto no.3's character , but it is clearly diffrent piece and it has another beauty Thank you for your upload and kind explain
A few more notes I later discovered after reviewing the liner notes to Berezovsky's recording: in 1914 Rachmaninoff withdrew Etude-Tableau #3 op33 before publication which would later be part of the second movement. It was dedicated to Medtner who said he was amazed by the fewness of pages considering it's importance. After Rachmaninoff recorded it, he dropped it from his repertoire and the first LP recording was by Michelangeli in 1957 who never performed any music written by Rachmaninoff in public. I also learned Argerich and Pollini both studied with Michelangeli.
There are really three distinct versions of this concerto and, in my opinion, two--the earliest from 1926 and this, the final revision, both deserve places in the repertory. You can find the 1926 version (which Rachmaninoff premiered under Stokowski's baton) on youtube, from a Round Top Music Festival concert played very persuasively by Eteri Andjaparidze. (Alert listeners might notice two passages which Prokofiev echoes in his Fifth Symphony.) So far as Rachmaninoff dropping the piece from his repertory, he was 67 when he recorded the 4th at which time he had only two seasons left to him, so we can't infer much from this. Scott, I might also call your attention to another Michelangeli performance--taken from a live concert (on which he also played a Mozart concerto). It's also uploaded to youtube and I much prefer it to this venerable studio recording.
I agree that the Rome 1956 recording is another extraordinary performance and it may only be 2nd to this 1957 "studio" recording. 2 of THE greatest performances are by Italians of a quintessential Russian composer. I love how music can transcend all boundaries.
The way Michelangeli plays naturals in the C-minor modified chord instead of flats as indicated in the score, at 13:43 makes the melody so much more poignant...
I absolutely agree with you; only, I allow myself to suggest that it is a F-minor chord. (thus, D and E natural belong to the ascending melodic degree...)
Filippo Faes My bad! You’re so absolutely right. Yes, I was thinking of the C-minor which appears a couple of bars later where the naturals are explicit. My bad. Thanks for pointing this out!
@@wernherwilhelmson7688 Thank YOU for having made me notice the discrepancy between the score and Michelangeli's performance. Yours has been a precious hint! :)
@@kofiLjunggren yea it’s a transposition into G major, which comes from that C major climax of the first movement which is based on the main thematic motif of the first movement. Genius!!!
I never anticipated a reference to Dies Irae from the beginning, until I reach 8:46 where fragments of it appear in the arching bass (alto) line of the piano.
For me the highpoint is in the 2nd movement the final ascending passage which he took almost 1:1 from the etude tablaeu op 33 No. 3 and interpreted it orchestrally. the best musical orgasm i know of.
If I am hearing this correctly, one bar after marking 37, (neighborhood of 13:38), Arturo played D natural and E natural (sort of the melodic scale of the f minor key in that bar), even though it was written to be played D flat and E flat. I don't know whether it was intentional or there is a hidden Ossia written somewhere -- both ways serve their own auditory merits. In fact, it is parallel to the corresponding bar in the next phrase. If anyone can elaborate on this, it would be greatly appreciated.
Michelangeli plays the same as the composer in this passage, though the score shown here does differ. There are 3 published versions of the concerto - perhaps this explains the difference.
O terceiro movimento é sensacional, obra singular. Muito estilo mais descontraído de Rachmáninov. Em termos de originalidade, pode ser que seja este seu melhor concerto para piano!
Such an underrated piece of music. I know everybody is saying the same thing as me, but we’re all right! The second theme in the first movement is not the typical “beautiful” theme in the second or third concertos, but I find it very beautiful in it’s own way, perhaps even more beautiful than the others. The climax in the same movement doesn’t lead to a point in the second or third concertos, but this anti-climactic point perfectly describes Rachmaninov’s emotions. Is the second movement jazz??? Of course it’s not quite, but this is very special. To me the third movement is a bit more “normal,” still great and a beautiful melody. This is so much darker than other Rachmaninov works and you can really feel his sadness for the change occurring in the world. Imagine a man seeing all his friends compose in a way further into the future than of his Romantic style. I personally cant imagine the sadness he must’ve been feeling. And then on top of that, this concerto wasn’t even well received by the public! How is that even possible, this is so great?! Michelangeli’s performance is obviously great. A great sonority and color pallet, as per usual. He was truly an artist. He goes down as one of the most expressive and simply beautiful pianists of all time. Every thing he touches comes to life and grows into a beautiful forest of sounds. I am so grateful to live in a world where I have an easy access to his recordings.
It is actually a very good work , despite Rachmaninoff ‘s own insecurities . It tastes modern and elegant . Nothing like the third one in my own opinion , which I think it’s a huge upgrade from the second .
Having got a copy of this Recording Reissued under licence by His Master's Voice in the Golden Treasury of Immortal Performances Record Number CSLP-515;it was such a shame that Rachmaninov Died before he could live to see Peace and thank God for the Gramophone so the General Public can still hear his Wonderful Playing and all his four Piano Concerto's with him at the Piano were all Recorded Between Wednesday and Saturday April 10th and 13th 1929 and Saturday December 20th 1941 just two weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour
I just listened it for the first time, and damn it seems kinda weird how the original reception of the piece wasn’t that good. Like sure it’s not like the other rachmaninoff concertos but it’s a masterpiece in its own way
The passage from 14:26 - 15:12 is what sets old Seryozha apart from other late romantic composers, and ultimately lifts him above the supermajority of his contemporaries (Glazunov, Medtner, Arensky, Taneyev, Balakirev etc.) He basically composed his arrival to heaven there, guys. What a strange masterpiece the 4th is. Gone are the optimism and euphoria of the coda in the 3rd concerto or the passionately singing melodies of the 2nd... I think when the bolsheviks seized power and they destroyed his ancestral home - resulting in him having to live as a fugitive for the rest of his life, something just broke inside. Think of the chords at 6:13 - it's something that was unheard of in any Rachmaninoff compositions prior to this. It's a desperate call for help. Not just a call, a shriek, even... And what eerie, borderline dissonant chord progressions left and right - this is truly a unique jewel. I've read some interviews he had done from this period. He said that he still holds onto his Russian passport despite being an exile. I think that sums up this piece really well. What is even more terrible than the cool reception this piece initially got (I'd wager the American audience didn't know what the heck was going on after the former two), is Michelangeli's unimaginative, blasé playing... I don't think he likes (or understands for that matter) this piece at all. Listen to Rach himself or Kocsis if you want a modern recording - Ashkenazy's interpretation of the original 1926 version is tolerable too.
@@samaritan29 Unironically man, more power to you. In my case, every time I listen to any Medtner, I just wish I was listening to Rachmaninov instead. Not to say Medtner wasn't a technically great composer, but he's one of those who lack that extra mile, that indescribable "plus" that separates fully autonomous, unmistakable geniuses from well-rounded, expert composers.
@@Kris9kris Fair enough but I do find Medtner to be more then just a Romantic and German Rachmaninov, and also a lot less prone to writing just pretty tunes. but i do find his music more rigorously worked out though, in terms of structure and form.
What Horowitz did for the Third Concerto, Michelangeli did it for the Fourth Concerto: leave THE interpretation in which every pianist get inspiration 😎
It breaks my heart that events in his life affected his output, the wars and revolution and how poorly his music was initially received and how he was forced to be a performer which left little or no time for composition. I always wonder what if he had lived with better circumstances, what else would have come from him? I have recently been looking for different recordings of this and was surprised to find relatively few so I basically bought everything I could find - in the process I stumbled on to a recording of the original unedited version and was surprised about the history of this piece and its many transformations. In the liner notes it said when he received the copied piano score it was 110 pages and was terrified of its length and I think how he must have really been second guessing himself. I think this is one of the first recordings, maybe the only one ever made at that time (other than the one made by the composer himself) although I could be mistaken. Didn't Argerich study with Michelangeli for a while?
+scottbos68 Yes she did study with ABM. This recording is for me the benchmark, all others (even Ashkenazy etc.) don't come close to this particular one. Michelangeli apparently felt the same (read my description underneath the video). Concerning the time a pianist-composer like Rach had for composing: read up on the tragic tale of Enescu. A genius composer that never had enough time for composing, but had to perform music all the time for a living... and still ended up dirt-poor.
I didn't know that about Enescu although I do have a book about him I haven't read by Boris Kotliarov, I have been curious about his music for a while now as I am an admirer of the exoticness of his eastern European sound. Enescu I'm curious about but Each and Chopin are my all time faves.
Initially it was Earl Wild who attracted me to the piece but I always like to hear alternate recordings which is how I stumbled onto this so I ended up buying the box set of all his recordings.
The splashing, splinking, splunking Chord Monster unleashing the rarefaction and oscillation of wave frequency at variant harmonic series of the universe few can tap into let alone execute at such controlled fury. The beast within unleashed yet once again. A relayer of consciousness at the individual level. Marvelous!
Until UA-cam recommended this, I had no idead that R had composed more then 3 piano concertoes. I feel like a fool.
Don't! Feel blessed rather that you now have heard his great 4th concerto :)
Can you believe that the reception of this Concerto was terrible. Rachmaninoff rewrote it twice to "improve it". Either these were some major rewrites, or early 20-th century music critics were utter shite!
Rachmaninov was dissatisfied with the original version. He condemned it for showiness at the expense of technique. In addition he also made significant revisions to the first and third concertos, and most famously of all the sonatas in b flat and d for solo piano.
The nature of Rachmaninoff's revisions differ in the case. To my knowledge, Rachmaninoff never touched either the 2nd Concerto or the Rhapsodie once they were published. The revisions of the First Concerto were compositional improvements of what was essentially a student piece. The work was actually substantially recomposed. He made short cuts to the Third Concerto (as he did to the Second Symphony) but they are simply deletions of small connecting tissue - mostly short discursive segments. These were not changed in the published score, however. He made the cuts in his own recording but most people now play the score uncut, with perhaps the single exception being a repeated measure in the cadenza that sort of sounds like the record skipped. Musically speaking, it's kind of a hiccup. The Fourth Concerto was a whole other matter. The original (which has only recently been published and recorded) REALLY is discursive in many spots and tends to go on and on. Those spots are really nice, but what they do is to impede the forward momentum in many places. Before he initially published it near the end of the 1920s he made a number of cuts. But it really didn't solve the problem. It was only in his last years that he had the courage to go through it again and make MAJOR cuts throughout and then compose patches to connect the remaining phrases. This is the version he recorded but the score was published only after his death. So, all three versions have been recorded and scores published but I have to say, having lived with the piece for more than a half century, even though I like some of the cut material, the work is more successful as a work in its last revision. But that's my opinion for whatever it's worth. But it was also Rachmaninoff's.
Rachmaninoff actually received a lot of criticism for his first three, mainly because of how romantic they were in which forced him to create a different style with jazz elements (this information was given to me by my piano teacher). If anyone has any more knowledge, please tell.
This piece is absolutely mind boggling. U hear it the first time and think nah not as good as the other 3. Then it’s sticks with you for some reason and u listen to it more. After about the 4 th time listening u realise wow. This might even be the best Rachmaninoff piano concerto. I’d really love to understand biologically why this happens ?
Ollie Martinelli You probably notice more and more detail with each listening, skewing an initially cool perception towards one of interest and, ultimately, a deep enjoyment of the piece. The more we learn by repeated exposure to something the more we accustom ourselves to it - and hence may even start liking it. I’m no biologist so I can’t answer for that...
My fav in Rach 1
Imagine trying to understand biologically something that transcends the physical realm
It certainly is different from his others. Russians get it on the first listen. You are genetically fine if you get it on the 4th time, head up. After the 4th, not so much.
I had that but even more extreme with the Prokofiev toccata the first time I heard it I was like this is really had it sounds like a child smashing the keys but then as I listened to it again I heard more and more melodies and now I love the piece!
It's amazing that Michelangeli recorded no other piece of Rachmaninoff, not even the shortest prelude, but his least favourite work for piano and orchestra. So far as I know, this is a unique case of close artistic rapport between a great composer, a single work of his and a legendary performer.
Yeah. This is my favorite recording of the concerto!
this is my fave rachmaninoff piece as well!
I also find that amazing, 2 Italians gave the very best performance of a Russian work which shows you how universal Rachmaninoff is. This recording is my favorite concerto recording in all of music.
Well, it is not amazing if we are talking about Michelangeli. His personality and playing style is far away from the raws emotions emanated from Rachmaninov's music. Probably Michelangeli was asked to play Rachmaninov, and decided to play this underplayed and more modern piano concerto....it fits perfectally well to Benedetti's musical view 🤔
@@kaleidoscopio5 Very good point! That also explains why Michelangeli recorded Ravel's Pf concerto along with Rach #4. No other pianist dared to record Rach & Ravel side by side -- yet, Michelangeli did play them so naturally and beautifully.
This is an awesome concerto. No matter what many people think. This is as good as any other Rachs Concerto. It has awesome memorable melodies, interesting orchestrations and a huge impact on the listener.
Overall, the maturity in this concerto is enormous
Im kinda confused, what does "maturity" mean in this context
@@erwinschulhoff4464 prob how well crafted and complex the composition is
@@trebleclef9844 i wouldent map those qualities to something "mature". imma be real "maturity" in a composition sounds like a buzzword people use to sound smart, their definitions are also probably not consistent with how the other guy uses the word
@@erwinschulhoff4464 idk, i dont use that word either
how have i only listened to the first 3 and not this masterpiece?
18:00 - 18:42 - One of my favorite moments of all Rachmaninoff's works. Immense grief and nostalgia for his homeland. These descending chromatic chords (A-flat to G) at 18:32 literally give an effect of screaming.
yearning
Funny thing is I’ve heard this type of thing in his 3rd concerto and he probably used the same idea for many other pieces. It just reminds me of the 3rd concerto first
Yes, it takes a few listenings!
I 'd give half of the whole music for this particuliar moment (18:00 to 18:42)
The second movement is one of the most beautiful and satisfying in all of Western music. Especially at 14:35 until the end of the movement. UNREAL!! Gets me every time!!
Absolutely. I've always thought this and am delighted to find someone else who thinks so too. From the "Come Prima" (~14:00) are a few sublime minutes, a bit like the euphoria of the 18th variation as it detumesces into the next idea. One wonders whether this is "the meaning of life" expressed in music. This whole work is such evolutionary milestone even from the 3rd and perhaps my favourite of all.
I prefer slower versions even more. I guess I just like to draw something this beautiful out longer.
The passage at 14:35 also appears in Rachmaninov's 1911 Etudes-Tableaux Op.33, at the end of No. 3, if any of you want to hear it again in another context. Although I personally prefer how it's presented here.
Absolutely agree!
@@autoremix4798 It's a wonderful example of "self plagiarism". I tend to think that R. was so enamoured of that phrase that he felt it would get wider exposure in a concerto, than just as a piece for solo piano. And it sounds so glorious, played by a cello section!
Sublime concerto and criminally underrated. True Rachmaninoff lovers can appreciate it
listen to 2nd version (1928)
I think it's important to note that the 4th piano concerto is much more well-known in Russia
I expected that based on how much more advanced this concerto is musically. I damn love it.
I'm Russian musical college student (pianist). As far as I know, in my class practically nobody knows about 4th Rachmaninoff concerto. 5-6 peoole knows 2nd and 3rd concertos. I don't know why because I think that this concerto is very important in Rachmaninoff's music repertoire. (Sorry for bad English 😅)
sadly not true :c most of the people think that rachmaninoff has only 3 :c which is sad :c (:c)
@@smilingchanel4049 repertoire*** not baggage
Smiling Chanel История Рахманинова действительно эмоциональна. Он знал Чайковского в молодости как наставник и восторженный сторонник. Он был опустошен смертью Чайковского в 1893 году. Он уехал из России в США во время коммунистической революции. Его грустная музыка отражает тот факт, что он скучал по своей русской родине до конца своей жизни. Это моя любимая пьеса Рахманинова, особенно медленное движение. Forgive to Google translate по-Русский
8:35 to 8:55 is so incredibly beautiful, i seriously don´t know what to do whenever i hear that part.
I usually cry
Woooonderful!!!
Uhh listen to it?
It is like a dream, Rachmaninoff was literally a genius
This reminds me of the second concerto
I was listening before this Concerto, but not with head phones on high volume. It is so big difference in the way you feel it , because sounds goes directly to your brain and deep to your body... it is so deep impact of music to whole body, mind, spirit. The Concerto completely flooded everything. It is like water that swallows everything. So powerful concerto and brilliant performance of Michelangeli. Michelangeli is a storm and so much passion inside...
Still waters run deep...
Classical music have to be listened live or from speakers, not as techno over headphones in 100% volume that makes distortion and unnatural perception.
iannickCZ not if you have a good one :)
Headphones are definitely the way to go. You can hear so many more details.
@@iannickCZ Headphones for sure are better. Maybe not at 100 percent volume, though ;)
@@vedantdave579 haha yeah the biggest advantage of non amplified music is you can listen to your speakers at night haha
Michelangeli is simply unmatched in the 22:22-22:47 section. He knows precisely what articulation to apply and is keenly aware of the overall direction of this passage, in terms of dynamics, pressing the gas pedal and then pumping the brakes at the right moments to build excitement in a passage often reduced to disjointed block chords.
It also makes complete sense why Michelangeli chose to pair this piano concerto with Ravel’s G Major piano concerto. I can’t help but wonder whether or not Michelangeli is trying to draw some parallels between the two. Especially in the third movements, both are endowed with long virtuosic passages that build excitement and then suddenly transition into other passages with dramatically different textures and harmonies that also build excitement such as at 22:46. Michelangeli, as well as the orchestra applies very similar interpretations in these transitions, with the use of subito piano to sort of “reset” the excitement.
I feel like this is at the essence of what the composers are trying to achieve: how to retain excitement over long periods of time without coming off as tedious. Michelangeli and the orchestra have recognized this and are doing justice to composers’ intentions.
It's definitely in the top tier of R4s, imo. Don't laugh, folks, but another one I really like is Phillipe Entremont's, w/ Ormandy and the Boys. Free on UA-cam. Columbia Records' heyday. He keeps it rhythmically together, difficult in a lot of Rachmaninoff ( Rhapsody was hardest thing I ever encountered in my brief orchestral phase in life and we had a solid soloist, Brazilian Flavio Varani) and that lower register growl in Mvt I comes through as unmistakeably as a bullet train. Lots of pianists or recording people gloss over it. Gives me gooseflesh every time I hear PE in this passage. Like Ormandy he doesn't get enough respect. He also has a Debussy Printemps w/ the Denver orchestra , he conducted, on an inexpensive label ( cant remember) not to miss. Super talented and deserves a fresh hearing from people who likely knew less about classical music then than now, not to be condescending but it might have been meant that way eh.
Interesting, to me at least, aside, the one live performance I've heard of the Fourth was a great disappointment, Garrick Ohlsson. Capable but dull and I had a good seat. Not his forte or not his night. Maybe he was less than enthusiastic about spending the weekend in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Dunno . It was Bychkov's orchestra ( until some people spoke out) so it wasn't like they were programming The Syncopated Clock or Victory at Sea.
My feeling is simply that Rachmaninoff was deeply spiritual and introspective and expressed it through his great musical gifts. Russia has an incredible history of gifted artists, writers, musicians, scientists. No composer speaks to me as did Rachmaninoff, from another dimension it seems he worked.
Jessica Kespohl what about Wagner? Of course you cant really compare a piano concerto with an Opera but just in case you have never listened to music of Wagner you should give it a try!!
Same with Russian paintings and other things as well...I'm an artist. Russian art is actually quite profound and deep.
We have that gift just because russia was a commusintic land and people had a harder life because of that
Just*64 No offence, but this view of Russia is deeply shallow. Communism=difficult life=depth of introspection, feeling, etc.?
What about the deep introspective works of Tchaikovsky (died in 1893, before communism ever sprouted up), what about Pushkin (died 1837), what about the numerous saints that lived all throughout the ages since the 10th century and philosophised on existence? They were also deeply spiritual and introspective... It’s a factor of the way of life, not of one short age which was nonetheless very important in Russian history as a whole.
@@esdjesd8589 fuck you are right ill take it back
The third movement has something highly magical about it. I can't even describe it; it's so catchy and somehow feels like an old mystery movie or something.
Listen to the original uncut version then.
every third movement of all of his concertos were absolute masterpieces
The last part of the 4 concerto reminds me of Gershwin's piano concerto. If cancer had hot felled him, Rachmaninoff would've moved in a jazz or semi jazz direction IMHO.
This is Rachmaninoff’s last concerto, the reason the last movement particularly is catchy is because he was actually inspired by jazz while composing the third movement specifically, and partially the second one as well, they have some jazz references, as yes, he was alive during the jazz period, and also the “old mystery movie vibe” is also heavily influenced by jazz.
This to me is Rachmaninoff's saddest concerto. Not the majestic thought-provoking tumult of the second concerto, not the towering tolls of the third - but this one... I think more than anything for the briefness, fleetingness of its explicitly melodic and heightened episodes in the midst of a sharpness so unexpected from R.'s early works, and what we'd come to associate with him.
Take, for example part of the theme starting at around 2:31 and running through until
around 3:26, where it almost feels like a re-thinking of snippets of S.V.R's first concerto's first movement.
The culminative theme at 6:21 is almost a re-thinking of the arabesquish themes haunting Rachmaninoff for his whole life, ending in an eruption of what may remind one of the clang of an early-20th-century phone-call.
It almost seems to me that the brief return of the main theme of the first movement at 8:32 is a clarified, crystalline, tear-wrenching re-thinking, an attempt to return back to days of youth...
The second movement's repetitive main idea is almost like a voyage through a single memory, leading on through several key changes until a dissonative, episode of almost helpless anger. 12:53 feels like a brief memory of parts of the second symphony, until through a tumultous culmination it melts into another episode of inner sadness and resignation starting at 13:38... Brief consolation and a joy of memory in the flute at 14:33 along with the buildup to the memory of Etude Tableaux op. 33 no.3 (as Popo Lala said in one of the comments below).
17:34 begins off a memory of bright, sunlit fields of a homeland Rachmaninoff lost for ever... The D-flat major episode is one of his more inspired melodies in this concerto, and to my mind its beauty is accentuated by its briefness...
You couldn't have said it better!
14:34 is just too beautiful
Funny how I think this is his happiest concerto and his second, his darkest
Wow. Just wow. Beautiful. To me, though, this is a whimsical reminisce of all his previous pieces, his life, and everything that has happened: joy, sadness, grief, love, hate, and so on.
seems D flat is a very special key for Rachmaninoff. Every one of his concertos has a heartwrenchingly lyrical section in D flat: 1st concerto has a D flat major bit in the cadenza; 2nd concerto has D flat major bit in 3rd movement; 3rd has most of the first half of the 2nd movement, 4th has the only happy bit in the concerto, and Paganini Rhapsody has of course the 18th variation. Corelli variations also have the only happy bit in D flat. Symphonic dances also have D flat major melody in 3rd movement.
Rachmaninov is such a KING of creating wonderful beautiful musical atmospheres and landscapes ... so dreamy .. LOVE IT !!!
I have known this concerto for some 40 years but this performance impresses me far more than any other that I have heard.
An amazingly difficult but flawlessly executed performance by Mr Michelangeli. Incredible.
It may not be the best known or even the better Rach concerto but the playing of Michelangelo is unbelievably perfect!
Yes his playing is without peer here!
lol trifonovs recording is laughable almost in comparision
One of the underrated composers, N. Medtner should be mentioned in the explanation above. Rachmaninoff dedicated the original version of this Concerto to him.
wow, makes sense. You can really hear his influence in the first movement.
Yes. Great friends !
Слушать его большое удовольствие,но играть и чувствовать это гораздо больше, это мой личный опыт.
Три концерта до него великолепные по красоте,но этот кроме красоты психологически глубже ,и трагичней,здесь красота другая,особенно вторая часть.
The first time I heard this piano concerto, I couldn't fully understand it. Today every time I hear it I'm happy for a few moments :')
Amazing interpetation. Good audio quality for 1957 as well
From start to finish, arguably my favorite of Rach's piano concerto, each movement. The piano displays so much fantasy it almost feels improvised at times. And pianist Michelangelo interprets it all with amazing technique and heart.
I love all 4 concerti but the 4th stirs my soul. The transcendental performance of Michelangeli is absolute mindboggling.
17:59 - 18:41 I like to imagine this was Rachmaninoff's love letter to the homeland he never returned to, and a final farewell to the old Russia...
It's my favorite part of this supremely underrated concerto.
I think his farewell was his Third Symphony or the Symphonic Dances. I feel this concerto more like an experiment from a Rachmaninoff that doesn't find his place in the new musical panorama of 20th century or outside of his motherland.
I acctualy imagine this part the same way, It's like a final farewell to Imperial Russia after all of the chaos and turmoil of the revolution 1917.
@@dang5874 Symphonic dances in my opinion depicts the start of WW2 and the nazi invasion, and Rachmaninoff being aware that germany might attack the soviet union. But that's just my opinion, but the music really has that mood and motif.
4:48 What a masterfully crafted, full of tension leading to climax.
one of its best moments. Utter darkness. Pleasant
6:21- is wowzas! So magnificent and powerful!
The most impassioned C major triad of all time
@@BuzPiano you are absolutely right :)
@@BuzPiano and the b major before the c major is extremely mysterious
私もここが一番好きだ
I hear so much intense sadness throughout this piece.
Ikr? Especially that 2nd movement, where it sounds like somber (and, at times, brooding) nostalgia, to me.
I love the theme at 5:40, it's so catchy!!
I know
The development of his 3rd concerto is very similar!
I mean, this piece is an absolute beauty, what a shame how rarefied and relatively unknown it has become.
14:42-15:13 is from etude tableux op.33 no/.3
The thing is Rachmaninov never intended what we now know as the 3rd Etude Tableau for publication or public performance. The manuscript was found 4-5 years after his death, maybe he thought that this part was just too good to be wasted in a minor piece - and boy he was right. It works much better here giving a sharp contrast and a sudden rush of quietude after an otherwise melancholic and depressing movement.
Kris9kris, that etude actually has a lot to it. With a melodically dissonant start and a hauntingly calm arpeggio transition, it is a thing of beauty. There is a subtleness to the composition before the part you mention which was integrated into #4. That part is only around 15% of the etude. As a whole, 33/3 is a gorgeous stand-alone composition that I'm glad exists!
The main theme's chord progression sounds like Op.33 No 4
Ah, Rach! Everything he wrote is about "yearning."
Basically, a melancholy man whose Russian roots are all about estrangement from a way of life that really mattered to him.
Ah, Rach! The genius: pianist, composer, conductor. The power of the man is astounding and each of his compositions reflect this genius.
Michelangeli captures the brilliance, [the yearning] of the man in his superhuman performance of this masterwork.
How I would have liked to hear Rach play this masterwork or at least conduct it.
On third listening I begin to feel what he is saying and how much deeper this is than the first three concertos. The third movement gives me shades of Gershwin but much deeper moments. What a beautiful journey into the mind of a genius.
The microphones have been placed so well to enable the listener to hear all the piano throughout the concerto. They knew a thing or two back in 1957.
8:20-9:15 is the most beautiful thing i have heard in my life
Better listen to Chopin than this boring stuff Chopin ks better
Banumathi P you sad ignorant soul. when music becomes complex for you find it boring. chopin is great but calling rachmaninov boring is completely untrue.
@@jeremoo yess!! Rachmaninoff is so complex and full of harmonies! So beautiful!
@@banumathi8684 Chopin and Rach are actually my favorite lol
@@jeremoo Chopin also composed complex music like Grand Polonaise Some Etudes and Rach doesn't even come close to his music.. 😊 I have made my friends (nearly 3 which is harder) listen to classical music by introducing Chopin no one likes Rach..
All Rach's piano concerti are masterpieces.
Michaelangeli plays this flawlessly and the second movement is very pretty. But as with all of Rachy's work, I'm going to have to listen to it a 100 times more, to understand it.
Undoubtably and unmistakeably the unique voice of the Russian master
It has been mentioned in the comments, and I agree - the first time I listened to this, I disliked it, although upon revisiting it, I grew to like it a great deal. To all those people who say that this is poor quality, just listen to it again. You will grow into it.
I'd never have expected Rachmaninov to actually write something this modern. A complete 180 from his usual reactionary composition style.
Probably why audiences didn't react too well. This doesn't have that much in common stylistically with 2 and 3- no sweeping melodies to latch onto.
Alex Cordogan I think 4th concerto is more interesting and mystery than 2 & 3. 2nd is the most beautiful and touching ,and 3rd is the most epic piece of Rachmaninoff. All of his concertos are masterpieces.
@@hsiehrachel It's a masterpiece still no doubt- just different
@@alexcordogan780 The main theme of the 1st movement seems sweeping enough for me, although admittedly it isn't given as much room to breathe as the themes in Rachmaninoff's 2nd and 3rd concertos. Only at the very end does he go "full Rachmaninoff" with it. But the piano part here is as exciting as anything Rachmaninoff ever wrote, though for some reason few (if any) pianists have played it as electrifyingly as Michelangeli does.
Thanks, fantastic! It reminded me a litte of Ravels concerto e voila Benedetti Michelabgeli was the cause, as he recorded an extraordinary rendition of the Ravel concerto.
Rachmaninoff concerto is always very beautiful.
Hi
@@whaijorhujishkomunyk hi
@@WEEBLLOM hi phren phrom occident
very interesting!! this piece definitely and felicitously(?) showed Rach's piano concerto no.3's character , but it is clearly diffrent piece and it has another beauty
Thank you for your upload and kind explain
A few more notes I later discovered after reviewing the liner notes to Berezovsky's recording: in 1914 Rachmaninoff withdrew Etude-Tableau #3 op33 before publication which would later be part of the second movement. It was dedicated to Medtner who said he was amazed by the fewness of pages considering it's importance. After Rachmaninoff recorded it, he dropped it from his repertoire and the first LP recording was by Michelangeli in 1957 who never performed any music written by Rachmaninoff in public. I also learned Argerich and Pollini both studied with Michelangeli.
la bible oudio en francais
There are really three distinct versions of this concerto and, in my opinion, two--the earliest from 1926 and this, the final revision, both deserve places in the repertory. You can find the 1926 version (which Rachmaninoff premiered under Stokowski's baton) on youtube, from a Round Top Music Festival concert played very persuasively by Eteri Andjaparidze. (Alert listeners might notice two passages which Prokofiev echoes in his Fifth Symphony.) So far as Rachmaninoff dropping the piece from his repertory, he was 67 when he recorded the 4th at which time he had only two seasons left to him, so we can't infer much from this. Scott, I might also call your attention to another Michelangeli performance--taken from a live concert (on which he also played a Mozart concerto). It's also uploaded to youtube and I much prefer it to this venerable studio recording.
I agree that the Rome 1956 recording is another extraordinary performance and it may only be 2nd to this 1957 "studio" recording. 2 of THE greatest performances are by Italians of a quintessential Russian composer. I love how music can transcend all boundaries.
Simply breathtaking... 8:35
The climax to the slow movement at 14:30. Prepare to tear up.
Thanks for uploading!
The way Michelangeli plays naturals in the C-minor modified chord instead of flats as indicated in the score, at 13:43 makes the melody so much more poignant...
I absolutely agree with you; only, I allow myself to suggest that it is a F-minor chord. (thus, D and E natural belong to the ascending melodic degree...)
Filippo Faes My bad! You’re so absolutely right. Yes, I was thinking of the C-minor which appears a couple of bars later where the naturals are explicit. My bad.
Thanks for pointing this out!
@@wernherwilhelmson7688 Thank YOU for having made me notice the discrepancy between the score and Michelangeli's performance. Yours has been a precious hint! :)
Also Rachmaninoff plays Natural D e Natural C...
23:35 orchestra entrance is unreal!
Is that an variation on the climax in the first mvt? They sound almost the same
@@kofiLjunggren yes
@@kofiLjunggren yea it’s a transposition into G major, which comes from that C major climax of the first movement which is based on the main thematic motif of the first movement. Genius!!!
I never anticipated a reference to Dies Irae from the beginning, until I reach 8:46 where fragments of it appear in the arching bass (alto) line of the piano.
Late Rachmaninoff really knew how to sneak the Dies Irae in his pieces.
Edit: Late Rachmaninoff = post opus 39 Rachmaninoff
8:32 Rach 2?
Rachmaninoff also uses this accompaniment style in the middle section of the third movement of No. 3.
Luka Puka true
Hi Deniz :)
Those Arpeggios have this Debussy-esque or Ravel-esque quality to them. Rachmaninoff himself enjoys a good arpeggio now and then.
Yes. Mister President.
19:14 to 21:11 is sublime
ABM made this work sound so natural---like breathing--- and yet the score is quite intimidating at first glance.
For me the highpoint is in the 2nd movement the final ascending passage which he took almost 1:1 from the etude tablaeu op 33 No. 3 and interpreted it orchestrally. the best musical orgasm i know of.
8:43 Dies Irae theme in LH :D
Oml I didn’t even notice 😳, he like made it beautiful too
Classic Rachmaninoff.
@@Scherzokinn rightfully so
@@donnytello1544 yes, obviously.
Indeed
If I am hearing this correctly, one bar after marking 37, (neighborhood of 13:38), Arturo played D natural and E natural (sort of the melodic scale of the f minor key in that bar), even though it was written to be played D flat and E flat. I don't know whether it was intentional or there is a hidden Ossia written somewhere -- both ways serve their own auditory merits. In fact, it is parallel to the corresponding bar in the next phrase. If anyone can elaborate on this, it would be greatly appreciated.
Might have simply been an error. As far as I know there is no ossia to be found. Either way both have their respective effects.
Michelangeli plays the same as the composer in this passage, though the score shown here does differ. There are 3 published versions of the concerto - perhaps this explains the difference.
@@jukeh Thank you very much. I did not know about the 3 versions but now I will check them out!
The way ABM delivers the whole concerto and especially the climax at 6:13 has never been surpassed. Never!
by far my favorite rachmaninoff piano concerto
The part starting at 17:41 really reminds me of the second movement of the first concerto.
O terceiro movimento é sensacional, obra singular. Muito estilo mais descontraído de Rachmáninov. Em termos de originalidade, pode ser que seja este seu melhor concerto para piano!
Surely this performance is by Alexts Weissenberg who features in the photograph..
Perfection in sound and music. ❤❤
Good god I love this concerto.
It loves you too!
I can't bear the beauty of 8:30 - 9:10
Absolutely addicted to the section from 6:43 to 7:51.
16:35 Love that moment so much
23:52 - 23:54 Prometheus by Scriabin
Magnifique concerto, qui selon moi, n'est pas aussi saisissant que le 2 et le 3.. mais c'est simplement mon ressenti..🙏🎶❤️💓🎶
Such an underrated piece of music. I know everybody is saying the same thing as me, but we’re all right! The second theme in the first movement is not the typical “beautiful” theme in the second or third concertos, but I find it very beautiful in it’s own way, perhaps even more beautiful than the others. The climax in the same movement doesn’t lead to a point in the second or third concertos, but this anti-climactic point perfectly describes Rachmaninov’s emotions. Is the second movement jazz??? Of course it’s not quite, but this is very special. To me the third movement is a bit more “normal,” still great and a beautiful melody.
This is so much darker than other Rachmaninov works and you can really feel his sadness for the change occurring in the world. Imagine a man seeing all his friends compose in a way further into the future than of his Romantic style. I personally cant imagine the sadness he must’ve been feeling. And then on top of that, this concerto wasn’t even well received by the public! How is that even possible, this is so great?!
Michelangeli’s performance is obviously great. A great sonority and color pallet, as per usual. He was truly an artist. He goes down as one of the most expressive and simply beautiful pianists of all time. Every thing he touches comes to life and grows into a beautiful forest of sounds. I am so grateful to live in a world where I have an easy access to his recordings.
My childhood practice nightmare 😂❤ but now having to learn this again I love it
mann!!! this piece has grown on me!!! it's actually so good and comparable to his other concertos
It is actually a very good work , despite Rachmaninoff ‘s own insecurities . It tastes modern and elegant . Nothing like the third one in my own opinion , which I think it’s a huge upgrade from the second .
22:48, I swear there is meant to be a clarinet somewhere in there, is there not? I can hear it in my head
14:34 to 15:12 -- Some of the greatest 38 seconds in all of music; certainly, in all of Rachmaninoff.
6:13 - 6:21 What an interesting chord progression! Sounds like B7 - Dm - Bb7 - C# - Fm - Abm - AbmM7 - G+ - C
It's more about voiceleading
Also fourth chord isnt C# it is Db
@@na-kun2136 okay, but it doesn't change the chord progression eharmonically
@@tarikeld11 yes. But brings more sense and logic functionally
This concerto is so strange, and that's why I love it.
Thanks for posting
The first few bars have such wide chords... I had no idea I like such widely spaced chords
Those opening piano chords. Melody that sounds so hopeful. Gets me every time.
Omg that 6.33-6.41 !!
8:27 magic
Guillermo Muñoz So true
the whole concerto is magic
Chilling!!
It’s very suitable for being a Hollywood horror or mystery movie theme. So different from the concerto 2 & 3. Still impressive and excellent.
The 1st movement explosion is beyond cool!
The is the only piano concerto by Rachmaninoff Michelangeli recorded.
Having got a copy of this Recording Reissued under licence by His Master's Voice in the Golden Treasury of Immortal Performances Record Number CSLP-515;it was such a shame that Rachmaninov Died before he could live to see Peace and thank God for the Gramophone so the General Public can still hear his Wonderful Playing and all his four Piano Concerto's with him at the Piano were all Recorded Between Wednesday and Saturday April 10th and 13th 1929 and Saturday December 20th 1941 just two weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour
the end of the 3rd movement where the very first theme of first movement comes back with altered jazz-like harmonies… makes me think rach wasnt human
the third movement gives me a prokfiev vibe
The best concerto of Rachmaninoff similar in structure at the Tchaikovsky's First Concerto.
El tema inicial es una delicia.
I just listened it for the first time, and damn it seems kinda weird how the original reception of the piece wasn’t that good. Like sure it’s not like the other rachmaninoff concertos but it’s a masterpiece in its own way
the grieg influence really shines in the second movement
The passage from 14:26 - 15:12 is what sets old Seryozha apart from other late romantic composers, and ultimately lifts him above the supermajority of his contemporaries (Glazunov, Medtner, Arensky, Taneyev, Balakirev etc.) He basically composed his arrival to heaven there, guys. What a strange masterpiece the 4th is. Gone are the optimism and euphoria of the coda in the 3rd concerto or the passionately singing melodies of the 2nd... I think when the bolsheviks seized power and they destroyed his ancestral home - resulting in him having to live as a fugitive for the rest of his life, something just broke inside. Think of the chords at 6:13 - it's something that was unheard of in any Rachmaninoff compositions prior to this. It's a desperate call for help. Not just a call, a shriek, even... And what eerie, borderline dissonant chord progressions left and right - this is truly a unique jewel. I've read some interviews he had done from this period. He said that he still holds onto his Russian passport despite being an exile. I think that sums up this piece really well. What is even more terrible than the cool reception this piece initially got (I'd wager the American audience didn't know what the heck was going on after the former two), is Michelangeli's unimaginative, blasé playing... I don't think he likes (or understands for that matter) this piece at all. Listen to Rach himself or Kocsis if you want a modern recording - Ashkenazy's interpretation of the original 1926 version is tolerable too.
Im sorry but i cannot agree with you, medtner concertos are just as good as rach's - undoubtedly
@@samaritan29 Unironically man, more power to you. In my case, every time I listen to any Medtner, I just wish I was listening to Rachmaninov instead. Not to say Medtner wasn't a technically great composer, but he's one of those who lack that extra mile, that indescribable "plus" that separates fully autonomous, unmistakable geniuses from well-rounded, expert composers.
@@Kris9kris Fair enough but I do find Medtner to be more then just a Romantic and German Rachmaninov, and also a lot less prone to writing just pretty tunes. but i do find his music more rigorously worked out though, in terms of structure and form.
6:09 That's so fucking epic
Yes !!!!
16:15- is nice as well. but should be a bit faster
I think it's just loud as hell. It's also heavily reminiscent of the 3rd concerto.
The themes in this concerto have many similarities with the Concerto No 3.
I think it's why it is from the same composer.
@@nassera Of course, but it's rare that composers use such similar themes like Rachmaninoff.
What Horowitz did for the Third Concerto, Michelangeli did it for the Fourth Concerto: leave THE interpretation in which every pianist get inspiration 😎
i discovered this today and i really really wish i had discovered it years ago. tbh it ranks along 2 and 3
2:55 to 3:28 WOW
It breaks my heart that events in his life affected his output, the wars and revolution and how poorly his music was initially received and how he was forced to be a performer which left little or no time for composition. I always wonder what if he had lived with better circumstances, what else would have come from him?
I have recently been looking for different recordings of this and was surprised to find relatively few so I basically bought everything I could find - in the process I stumbled on to a recording of the original unedited version and was surprised about the history of this piece and its many transformations. In the liner notes it said when he received the copied piano score it was 110 pages and was terrified of its length and I think how he must have really been second guessing himself.
I think this is one of the first recordings, maybe the only one ever made at that time (other than the one made by the composer himself) although I could be mistaken. Didn't Argerich study with Michelangeli for a while?
+scottbos68 Yes she did study with ABM. This recording is for me the benchmark, all others (even Ashkenazy etc.) don't come close to this particular one. Michelangeli apparently felt the same (read my description underneath the video). Concerning the time a pianist-composer like Rach had for composing: read up on the tragic tale of Enescu. A genius composer that never had enough time for composing, but had to perform music all the time for a living... and still ended up dirt-poor.
I didn't know that about Enescu although I do have a book about him I haven't read by Boris Kotliarov, I have been curious about his music for a while now as I am an admirer of the exoticness of his eastern European sound. Enescu I'm curious about but Each and Chopin are my all time faves.
* Rach and Chopin* *
Initially it was Earl Wild who attracted me to the piece but I always like to hear alternate recordings which is how I stumbled onto this so I ended up buying the box set of all his recordings.
He would then be too happy to write music like this haha
Браво, потрясающая музыка!!!😍😍😍
Nice, but the 2nd concerto hits me right in the heart. Hard to compete with that.
The splashing, splinking, splunking Chord Monster unleashing the rarefaction and oscillation of wave frequency at variant harmonic series of the universe few can tap into let alone execute at such controlled fury. The beast within unleashed yet once again. A relayer of consciousness at the individual level. Marvelous!