# Opinions on Shostakovich Piano Concerto 2



## Alegityellowman (Sep 3, 2018)

Hi all, 

Im currently learning Shostakovich's 2nd Piano Concerto for a school concert at the end of November. My teacher suggested that I learn just the first movement (due to a limited time period and my level of skill being somewhat of a beginner-intermediate). However, I'm in love with the 2nd movement and its romantic and melancholy melodies and would love to play the 1st and 2nd movement together; although my teacher said that the 2nd movement must be played with the 3rd due to the 'attacca' style of the 2nd movement. 

Ive learnt all the notes for the first and second movement, but i know that i definitely wont be able to learn all three movements by November, or at least get it up to performance level. 

Therefore i want to ask if it's strictly the case that the 2nd movement must be played with the 3rd. I've read that the 2nd movement does come to an acceptable resolution in C minor such that the 3rd movement is not necessary to conclude the concerto.

Any thoughts and comments would be much appreciated


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

As a total ignoramus regarding what "should" or "shouldn't" be played together in your situation, I think you should play whatever you want of the Shostakovich 2. Every movement is a gem, and perfectly capable of being heard as a standalone or in any combination you want--at least I'd want to hear it, as it's a great favorite, and you're offering whatever as part of a school concert, not your debut in some international piano competition.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

+1 w/ SM
Beats the heck out of me why you can’t play II without III. Why not learn as much as you can and learn the whole piece eventually? Perhaps you are aware the DSCH wrote it for his Son, Maxim, who was not a good Pianist, in the hopes that his son could tour with it, make some money, and move out of the Composers basement


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Well presumably you're working from a score so you can see that it goes pianissimo and peters out at the end before launcing into the finale, so it's perfectly possible to leave it there.

To anyone who knows it it's bound to feel unfinished, but how many know it?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Alegityellowman said:


> ...my teacher said that the 2nd movement must be played with the 3rd due to the 'attacca' style of the 2nd movement.


I agree that there doesn't seem to be any problem here. I'm not sure what the 2nd movement, or even the 3rd, being _attacca _would have to do with it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I tend to agree with your teacher’s advice. Despite your wanting to include the lovely second movement, it needs, IMO, the third to follow it or it can sound anti-climactic; but the first can stand alone and still be effective, and it has that impressive cadenza... The first movement will be challenging enough as it is and you’ll still be working until November so you can interpret its demands flawlessly in the heat of the moment. Perhaps it’s better to make more out of less. One man’s opinion.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

Unpopular opinion: your teacher knows what s/he's talking about. The convention is that when sonatas/concertos are played incomplete at student concerts, you play either the first movement ("the sonata allegro") or the slow movement + finale. 

It makes no sense to play the first and second movements and leaving out the third - ending on a slow movement is viewed as counter-intuitive and anti-climactic. 

I understand where you're coming from - the deservedly famous slow movement is uniquely beautiful, whereas the outer movements sound like they were written by Kabalevsky; yet the responsible and professional thing would be playing the first movement alone, I'm afraid. Unless you want to ditch the first movement and devote all your time to the finale, in which case you can play the last two movements.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> whereas the outer movements sound like they were written by Kabalevsky...


Oh? And what's wrong with Kabalevsky?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> Oh? And what's wrong with Kabalevsky?


He hasn't been feeling _at all_ well.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Illness after having already expired?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JAS said:


> He hasn't been feeling _at all_ well.


Maybe some comedians can cheer him up.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> Illness after having already expired?


It does complicate the treatment, and considerably lessen the odds of recovery.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> Illness after having already expired?


Death is Nature's way of telling us to slow down.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> Oh? And what's wrong with Kabalevsky?


There's something rather small-time and threadbare about his music, though it is perfectly pleasant on the ear. He was a kind of poor man's Prokofiev, which is not the worst thing to be, but it never rises beyond that. Still, if some of it was good enough for Horowitz and Gilels to play, then clearly it has some redeeming qualities.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm only a musical "civilian" but The Shostakovich Piano Concerto No. 2 has long been a favorite of mine.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> There's something rather small-time and threadbare about his music, though it is perfectly pleasant on the ear. He was a kind of poor man's Prokofiev, which is not the worst thing to be, but it never rises beyond that. Still, if some of it was good enough for Horowitz and Gilels to play, then clearly it has some redeeming qualities.


What Kabalevsky, or Shostakovitch (piano concertos?) or both?


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> There's something rather small-time and threadbare about his music, though it is perfectly pleasant on the ear. He was a kind of poor man's Prokofiev, which is not the worst thing to be, but it never rises beyond that. Still, if some of it was good enough for Horowitz and Gilels to play, then clearly it has some redeeming qualities.


Today I've been listening to Kabalevsky's Piano Sonatas II, III, String Quartet II (and last week, Symphonies nos. II, III and Piano Concerti I & II). Except for the Second Concerto, to an extent, his music rises well above this often yet ill used "poor man's Prokofiev" verdict. Listen to these works, plus his Second Cello Concerto II, the First String Quartet, the Cello Sonata, as well as some of his piano pieces (like the Sonatina op. 13, no. I) and you'll see where I'm coming from, I hope.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> There's something rather small-time and threadbare about his music, though it is perfectly pleasant on the ear. He was a kind of poor man's Prokofiev, which is not the worst thing to be, but it never rises beyond that. Still, if some of it was good enough for Horowitz and Gilels to play, then clearly it has some redeeming qualities.


Threadbare is not a word I would have chosen. As Orfeo says above I think this 'poor man's Prokofiev' is a cheap meme used in a similar way to how Weinberg is (wrongly) thought of as a Shostakovich clone. 
Kabalevsky's fourth piano concerto, which is not his best, is about as good as Shostakovich's second and the orchestrations are probably better. Kabalevsky is cursed by being known in the west as the guy who wrote the amusing 'Galop', but his Piano and cello concertos are better than just 'pleasant'.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> Threadbare is not a word I would have chosen. As Orfeo says above I think this 'poor man's Prokofiev' is a cheap meme used in a similar way to how Weinberg is (wrongly) thought of as a Shostakovich clone.
> Kabalevsky's fourth piano concerto, which is not his best, is about as good as Shostakovich's second and the orchestrations are probably better. Kabalevsky is cursed by being known in the west as the guy who wrote the amusing 'Galop', but his Piano and cello concertos are better than just 'pleasant'.


I remember having accompanied (on a piano) a violinist who played his first concerto, a simple enough piece that kinda stuck in my memory for years though I wasn't crazy about it. But on the evidence on the cello sonata alone I take my words back, he's clearly a far better composer than I thought he was.


----------

