# Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto 'No. 3'



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

What do you think of these fragmentary pieces?



Wikipedia said:


> Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 3 in E-flat major, Op. post. 75, was begun as a symphony in E flat. The symphony was abandoned, only to become a single-movement Allegro brillante when published posthumously. Controversy remains, despite the composer's stated intentions, as to what form this concerto would have taken had Tchaikovsky completed it to his satisfaction. This question is further heightened by two points-the musical quality of what might have been intended as the second and third movements of the concerto and whether this material was worth the efforts of his former student and fellow-composer Sergey Taneyev in resurrecting it after Tchaikovsky's death. These two movements were published as a separate but related composition as Op. post. 79 under the title Andante and Finale.


*Allegro Brillante*
Part 1





Part 2





*Andante*





*Finale*


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

I own a recording (Mikhail Pletnev and the Philharmonia) in his _Virgin _set of the complete Tchaikovsky for Piano and Orchestra.

Also, I wrote a little something about the attempt to "reconstruct" the Symphony in E Flat this Summer:
http://itywltmt.blogspot.com/2011/05/is-there-tchaikovsky-seventh-symphony.html

I think we have to take both the concerto and symphony renditions of the music as "fragmentary and sketchwork" - we cannot really compare them to the other concerti (or symphonies for that matter).

Of course, we can open up the debate of "unfinished business" and "wither to take on the task of finishing a composer's work". My sense is that we get a glimpse of "work in progress", that Tchaikovsky could have easily put aside - like many of his other fragmentary works - or worked up to a great work (as, I believe, his _second _concerto happens to be.)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

What do you think about the quality of the music presented in these version though? His first two piano concertos, despite the first being the leviathan that it is, are both acknowledged to have their flaws, and I think this mash-up actually presents some rather fun and interesting music!


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

If you're talking about the clips you posted above, I am at work and can't sample them through our "security-laden" network.

As for the Pletnev recordings, I have heard stronger performances (I am a BIG FAN of the Donohoe/Barshai recording, and there are "better" versions of the B Flat concerto - my sentimental favourite is an early Argerich/Dutoit collaboration I own on vinyl)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

itywltmt said:


> If you're talking about the clips you posted above, I am at work and can't sample them through our "security-laden" network.
> 
> As for the Pletnev recordings, I have heard stronger performances (I am a BIG FAN of the Donohoe/Barshai recording, and there are "better" versions of the B Flat concerto - my sentimental favourite is an early Argerich/Dutoit collaboration I own on vinyl)


Any recording you've heard is fine to comment on. 

I've had the Pletnev for the 'first' movement (the Andante and Finale aren't on the album I have for some reason - I didn't realise he'd recorded them), supplemented by Konstantin Scherbakov, and I think both cases are rather good.

I heard a recording of Emil Gilels playing the first movement today and it was horrifically slow!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The music in both 'works' is second-rate Tchaikovsky.

I have spoken.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Nice, Polednice...Refreshing...I like this more than his second...I also like very much Rachmaninov's 3rd...I don't like his second though...

Martin


----------

