# Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 1



## Raphaël-A. (Feb 20, 2008)

I have this piece on LP and on the back, it says that Rubinstein did not like the concerto when it was first played. It also says that the version we hear today is "an extensive revision which Tchaikovsky made in 1889". I'm really curious to find out what does the original work sounds like. Are there any recordings of it?


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Funny thing, the first piano concerto is one of those works, where the more i listen to it, the more uninteresting it becomes.....


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Certainly, the tunes are so familiar to us that I can see how they can perhaps become a little bit _boring _over time, I have the same reaction as a listener. But interestingly, as a performer, I have "participated" in this work 3 or 4 times, and I don't think I could ever grow tired of it in that respect, because there are many things in this piece that keep you on your toes, with respect to coordination of soloist and orchestra, that is absent in other similar concertos. In short, every time I co-perform this work, I get a feeling that I've become a better musician.


----------



## Raphaël-A. (Feb 20, 2008)

As a listener, I don't seem to get tired of the concerto yet... and hopefully it will stay that way


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Raphaël-A. said:


> As a listener, I don't seem to get tired of the concerto yet... and hopefully it will stay that way


You probably will get fed up with it in due course.

Here's a version that you may enjoy.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

HAHAHA Artemis, that's hilarious... some top-notch Python.

As for the whole "fed up" discussion, the main theme gets a little annoying, but, for me, the solos continue to be interesting. It may help that the recording I own is a Horowitz recording... can't have too much Vlad in your life


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

seriously, i think tchaikovesky is a great composer for new classical listeners, people who have short attention spans, and can't sit through a "serious" symphony. people who need "instant gratification" by hearing catchy/nice melodies... of course, there is nothing wrong with this approach, but classical music is soooo much more than just that.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6 (Dec 7, 2007)

Gustav said:


> seriously, i think tchaikovesky is a great composer for new classical listeners, people who have short attention spans, and can't sit through a "serious" symphony.


So you don't think the fourth or the sixth are serious symphonies?


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Try the 2nd Piano Concerto? It's a very different kind of work to the first. Much larger scale and more interesting maybe...(And not heard enough I think)...


----------



## Raphaël-A. (Feb 20, 2008)

@ Artemis: Thanks for the laughs! hahaha.

@ Gustav: I don't understand why you consider Tchaikovsky as "a great composer for new classical listeners". I totally agree with the fact that it is a good place to start for many people because of the melodies but still... Are you saying that catchy melodies and instant gratification makes a piece less interesting than if it is "serious"? I mean, Tchaikovsky is known for being a master of melody and when I listen to his music, it's exactly what I'm looking for.

@ David: The 2nd concerto is quite different indeed. I'm not sure if I'm ready to call it "more interesting" but it certainly is a very enjoyable piece!


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> So you don't think the fourth or the sixth are serious symphonies?


Sorry, but that's what i think, Tchaikovsky's 5th and 6th, they sound very nice, but they are not exactly "serious" in my terminology. I meant a more Austro-German symphonic "seriousness" (if you know what i mean) than sounding extremely happy or depressed.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Raphaël-A. said:


> Are you saying that catchy melodies and instant gratification makes a piece less interesting than if it is "serious"? I mean, Tchaikovsky is known for being a master of melody and when I listen to his music, it's exactly what I'm looking for.


Yes, because i always felt that the measure of a composer's true "Genius" is his ability to develop, and weave musical ideas together using very few ideas. Like i said before, there is nothing wrong with "liking nice melodies", but i just want to inform you, that those nice melodies don't last very long, the first time it will be gratifying of course, but after the Nth time, it's only going to get more and more boring. On the other hand, great composers, like Beethoven, or Mozart, the more you listen to their music, the more you like it, and it never gets boring, i promise.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

I agree with this quote:


Gustav said:


> Seriously, I think Tchaikovsky is a great composer for new classical listeners


I also agree with this quote:


well said:


> I think Tchaikovsky is a great composer.


There are a multitude of Classical Music fans, including many who've heard more music than I ever will, who've also come to that conclusion. Furthermore, there are numberless music professionals, including some who've performed even more frequently than our esteemed Maestro K, who continue to find merit in Tchaikovsky music, repetition and all.

To return to the topic of Tchaikovsky/Rubinstein, my memory is that after an initial hardening of wills, they eventually grew to find some accomodation in each other's ideas, to the long-term benefit of both.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Gustav said:


> Yes, because i always felt that the measure of a composer's true "Genius" is his ability to develop, and weave musical ideas together using very few ideas. Like i said before, there is nothing wrong with "liking nice melodies", but I just want to inform you, that those nice melodies don't last very long, the first time it will be gratifying of course, but after the Nth time, it's only going to get more and more boring. On the other hand, great composers, like Beethoven, or Mozart, the more you listen to their music, the more you like it, and it never gets boring, i promise.


Ok I am going off the thread a bit here.. but a good example of this is I think is Bruckner Symphony #8. In almost 90 minutes of music, there are few, if any "catchy" tunes to be found but, somehow, there is greatness there in the almost transparent gauze of sound held together to form a cohesive work..

On the other hand Mozart and Beethoven were good tune writers but they were also skilled at "weaving" together their material to form beautifully constructed classical pieces that are fairly "easy" to follow.

I do think, however, that Tchaikovskys' melodies do not get boring over time. He was very gifted in incorporating them in well constructed pieces..(The "Pathetique" symphony surely is one of the great symphonies)...


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The original versions of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concertos have been recorded by
Lowenthal/Commissiona as a 2CD-set, issued by Arabesque and later Bridge.
I haven´t heard the issue. The performers have made fine recordings before, 
though, of the Romantic repertoire. The 2nd Concerto has more recordings of the
original version. 
There seems to be a general agreement that the revised version of nr.1 really
is the best, and that the differences are rather unimportant.

These are the recordings I have, a mixture of CDs and LPs:

- Richter,Kondrashin,MosStSO/rev 68-97 rv 10057
- Richter,Mravinsky,LenPO/mel-bramante 57-94 bbbcd9004
- Horowitz,Toscanini,NBC/int.mu.co. 41-99 20.3166
- Levant,Ormandy,PhiladO/tim 49-00 205237-303
- Konstantinoff,Münch,ParConsO/membran 4cd mono 41-05 222357-354 
- Rubinstein,Mitropoulos,MinneaSO/tim 10cd 47-03 220833 303
- Rubinstein,Rodzinski,NYPO/membran 4cd 46-05 222361-354
- Argerich,Dutoit,RPO/dg 71-78 2535 295
- Argerich,Kondrashin,BayRSO/ph 6414 118
- Horowitz,Toscanini,NBCSO/rca 43-8x vl 46016
- Horowitz,Toscanini,NBCSO/rca ?? mono a12 0282
- Horowitz,Szell,NYPO/mov mus mono 4.5.52-81 01.008
- Pogorelich,Abbado,LSO/dg-eterna 85 725 100
- Richter,Mravinsky,LenPO/mel-eurod mono 87692 xak
- Richter,Ancerl (?),CzPO/sup dv 5217 mono
- Richter,Karajan,WSO/dg 62 139 822
- Farnadi,Scherchen,WStOp/west-heliodor mono 478 022
- Gilels,Reiner,ChicSO/rca st ccv 5016
- Levant,Ormandy,PhiladO/columbia mono ml 4883
- Arrau,Galliera,Philh/angel s60020
- Cliburn,Kondrashin,SO/rcs 58 st lsc2252
- Serebryakov,Mravinsky,LenPO /saga lp 5043

Among these, I have found the Horowitz/Szell recording from 1952 on movimento musica
incredible and in a class of its own. It is better in sound and playing than the Horowitz/
Toscanini issues, that are better known. Also, the Argerich/Kondrashin is very good, better
than her partnership with Dutoit. The Farnadi/Scherchen is not very good compared to their
reading of the 2nd Cto which is unbelievable, but there are some eccentricities perhaps
worth hearing. 
Finally, I have a faible for the Levant and Serebryakov recordings. Serebryakov, largely 
forgotten, also made a "Carnival" that is among the best, for example. His recording is
more delicate than, say, the definetely outgoing Horowitz, at times even feminine, but
very elegant. 
All of these are _highly_ romantic and passionate, the Argerich with by far the best sound. 
The Richter recordings I find boring and surprisingly restrained, except from the early one 
conducted by Mravinsky. I´m a big Richter fan, but these are not among his best. The 
same applies to Konstantinoff, totally uinteresting, and Arrau/Galliera, a disc I only keep 
for a nice Weber Konzertstück, which has better sound than the - even better played - 
Konzertstück in Arraus first recording of that work, with Defauw. I´m a huge fan of the
early Rubinstein, but in this concerto I find him much less engaging than the preferred
recordings.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

It's such a popular piano concerto because of its opening tune (apparently based on some blind beggar's music Tchaikovsky heard); sort of like a cheap marketing gimmick to catch your attention, with the rest of the work generally uninteresting the more often you listen to it.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

I will not change a single note!


----------



## TWhite (Feb 23, 2010)

Raphaël-A. said:


> I have this piece on LP and on the back, it says that Rubinstein did not like the concerto when it was first played. It also says that the version we hear today is "an extensive revision which Tchaikovsky made in 1889". I'm really curious to find out what does the original work sounds like. Are there any recordings of it?


Anton Rubenstein found the piano part extremely awkward to play and not well thought out. Tchiakovsky was extremely upset and said that he would not change a note. Actually, he went through the piano part later and revised the layout considerably--I believe he was assisted by Hans Von Bulow in this respect.

Tchiakovsky's piano music can lie awkwardly for the hand at times--his approach to the keyboard was somewhat 'orchestral'. I think what has kept the concerto alive for both pianists and audiences for so long is the wealth of thematic material, and not necessarily the way it is represented by the piano writing.

Myself, I find the piano writing in the concerto to be a little too 'brittle' and 'chordy' for my liking--I like the pianistic layout of his G-Major concerto quite a bit more. But this is just my opinion, mind you. And certainly a minority one, considering the number of performances the Concerto recieves both in live performances and on recordings.

Tom


----------



## Ilych (Jan 28, 2010)

I've been listening to this piece for about 38 years. I have yet to tire of it!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that Brahms' concertos are more cohesive (especially the first), but the Tchaikovsky is a great work nonetheless. I agree, it's a great introduction to piano concertos, and to classical music generally as well...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I like it. I haven't overheard it and if you overhear anything perhaps you would tire of it for *a while*. There's alot more to it than the opening theme, the first movement itself is full of good ideas. The last movement is full of melodic energy and is a great contrast to the quiet oasis of the slow movement. Surely one of his best pieces.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

it is so cheesy!!!!! It is the work I hate the most!

Martin


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

No matter to me how the piano part lays to the hand - that's the pianist's problem. The orchestral part pretty much sucks pond water though. Maybe that's why I listened to it often as a young man, and seldom as an old one. PIT's 2nd concerto, in it's original form, is still worth a listen a couple times a year.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> _PIT's 2nd concerto, in it's original form, is still worth a listen a couple times a year._


Duh!--and No. 3 also.

Along with Rimsky-Korsakov's, Balakirev's, Skryabin's piano concerti.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> Duh!--and No. 3 also.
> 
> Along with Rimsky-Korsakov's, Balakirev's, Skryabin's piano concerti.


Aha. It's nice to find a member I can disagree with so thoroughly. My tact room has gotten dusty. Yes, 'tact room' is derived from tack room, but I am not a horseman.

:tiphat:


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*comparing pears and bananas*

Aha. It's nice to find a member I can disagree with so thoroughly. My tact room has gotten dusty. Yes, 'tact room' is derived from tack room, but I am not a horseman.

=========================================

Scriabin? Balakirev?

what about Madonna? Céline Dion? Myself? (pronounce meeself)

LOL

Martin


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

TWhite said:


> Anton Rubenstein found the piano part extremely awkward to play and not well thought out. Tchiakovsky was extremely upset and said that he would not change a note. Actually, he went through the piano part later and revised the layout considerably--I believe he was assisted by Hans Von Bulow in this respect.
> 
> Tchiakovsky's piano music can lie awkwardly for the hand at times--his approach to the keyboard was somewhat 'orchestral'. I think what has kept the concerto alive for both pianists and audiences for so long is the wealth of thematic material, and not necessarily the way it is represented by the piano writing.
> 
> ...


I played (in the 1st violins) in a performance of this work a month ago, having barely heard it in the last 10 years (and having played the 2nd violin part about 20 years ago). It's a 'bitty' work, like much of Tchaikovsky, but justifiably popular. But watching a remarkably gifted 19-year-old girl play it last month from only 4 metres away I can tell you this - it's fiendishly hard to play. (Kids are playing concertos these days with a facility that would have them labelled genuis 200 years ago.) I mean, it really is. Rubenstein may hae been a bit justified in his initial reaction to the difficulty, but he hadn't imagined how silly he would look a century later...
cheers,
G


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

That's Rubinstein. A sandwich is not involved.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I love this work, but it's such a bear to play physically! Especially those octaves in the first movement and in the coda of the third movement... ugh! It also requires a lot of rehearsal with the accompanist, as there is a lot of complicated interplay between both parts, in all three movements. On the bright side, the music is very obvious and it is easy to be expressive.

I'm being pressured to play it for my senior college recital.. but the piece is much more a physical challenge to play than a musical one, and I'm not sure I like that.


----------



## alexandrew (Dec 5, 2010)

I really like this concerto. Although I'd somehow wish that that opening theme would return throughout the movement... if not cyclically throughout the entire concerto... that would be awesome! Or it could be gone altogether.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

One of my favourites!! There is no such thing as over the top romanticism, like Aramis says. I like this one with triple cheese and mayo, maybe with pink raspberry jam as well!


----------



## CDs (May 2, 2016)

Can someone recommend a good set of Tchaikovsky Piano Concertos 1-3. I see a lot of talk about his first piano concerto but not much of the other two. Are they just not that good? Thanks!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Aha. It's nice to find a member I can disagree with so thoroughly. My tact room has gotten dusty. Yes, 'tact room' is derived from tack room, but I am not a horseman.
> 
> =========================================
> 
> ...


Classic martin shenanigans. When will he make a new account and resume making our forum more lively?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Incidentally I have heard the original which was basically unplayed for over a century. Tchaikovsky didn't even revise the part that we hear now. A 19th century pianist did that and played it for Tchaikovsky, and he asked him how he liked it. Tchaikovsky said, "that isn't what I have written?" I recall something like that.

At any rate, I did prefer the original version, because it is more subtle. The chords in the beginning are arpeggiated and transposed an octave. There was also this really interesting developmental section that had been completely cut.

Check this out: http://www.shumanassociates.net/agency.php?view=news&nid=6389

Someone has made that recording available on youtube, in part. The beginning of the piece is actually around 2:36.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

CDs said:


> Can someone recommend a good set of Tchaikovsky Piano Concertos 1-3. I see a lot of talk about his first piano concerto but not much of the other two. Are they just not that good? Thanks!


I'd recommend Pletnev's imperious set. Wow! Tremendous playing!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tchaikovsk...62910127&sr=1-22&keywords=pletnev+tchaikovsky


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I believe Lazar Berman recorded the original version of the Tchaikovsky with Yuri Temirkanov. However, I don't think it is available.


----------



## CDs (May 2, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I'd recommend Pletnev's imperious set. Wow! Tremendous playing!
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tchaikovsk...62910127&sr=1-22&keywords=pletnev+tchaikovsky


Link didn't show anything for me. Would it be the one on Virgin with Vladimir Fedoseyev conducting?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I love this concerto - one of the greatest in the repertoire. Its popularity shouldn't conceal its greatness. It is a most original work. Pity the composer could never repeat it for piano. I love it because it introduced me to classical music (which has cost me a fortune ever since!) when I obtained a Decca Ace of Clubs recording by Julius Katchen. The disc has long since worn out with playing but I remember a tremendous performance coupled with Liszt's Hungarian Fantasy.
Discs I have of the concerto:

Richter / Karajan give a highly original performance which won't be everyone's cup of tea.
Horowitz / Toscanini - poor recording but great playing
Argerich / Kondrashin - hell for leather
Argerich / Dutoit - more considered but still very exciting
Entrement / Bernstein - very exciting and very well played
Pletnev / Fedoseyev - imperious playing
Graffmann / Szell - Szell didn't like the concerto and it does show a bit. Pity Graffmann didn't have Ormandy
Van Cliburn / Kondrashin - he won the Tchaikovsky - Richter gave him 100/10
Cziffra / Vadernoot - doesn't show the great pianist at his best and the recording is muffled.
Cherkassky / Fistoulari - the great magician of the keyboard

These are all I can think of in my library. Best all round? Impossible to say! But Argerich / Dutoit will not disappoint


----------



## CDs (May 2, 2016)

Thanks DavidA! The link works now.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

This concerto pleases me most when performed with tempi on the more rapid side, hence I favor Gilels, either with Reiner and the CSO (but old sound), or with Mehta and the NYP. He keeps it skipping right along.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Ilych said:


> I've been listening to this piece for about 38 years. I have yet to tire of it!


Bravo!....and after first hearing it 57 years ago, I too still enjoy it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Such fascinating hearing:

Van Cliburn - Piano Concerto No. 1 - Final of the 1958 Tchaikovsky Competition (Live Recording)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's the story of the concerto's early days, and how it came to be first played in Boston.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-...certo-no-1-got-its-1875-world-premiere-boston


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Here's the story of the concerto's early days, and how it came to be first played in Boston.
> 
> http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-...certo-no-1-got-its-1875-world-premiere-boston


A nice article. Thanks very much Ken.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Such fascinating hearing:
> 
> Van Cliburn - Piano Concerto No. 1 - Final of the 1958 Tchaikovsky Competition (Live Recording)


Like me, you've probably seen the filmed sessions with Cliburn in Moscow. For those who haven't, and might be interested, they can be viewed on You Tube.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

joen_cph said:


> The original versions of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concertos have been recorded by
> Lowenthal/Commissiona as a 2CD-set, issued by Arabesque and later Bridge.
> I haven´t heard the issue. The performers have made fine recordings before,
> though, of the Romantic repertoire. The 2nd Concerto has more recordings of the
> ...


What a fanastic overview of some of these recordings. Being a Richter fan, I was shocked at the blandness of the performance. Even his performance with HvK was not that great. Seeing your review, I now have to acquire the Horowitz/Szell Recording. I have Vlad with Toscanini and always lamented the sound quality, but the performance of that recording is off the charts!

I think Martha's third movement with Dutoit is excellent, but one of my favorite recordings is Gilels with Reiner. It's all there, passion, phrasing, color, sound quality, etc. I'm Amazing how bad Gilels is with Mehta, and I can't blame Mehta entirely in this for once, Gilels was definitely off his game on that recording.

Great post!

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Oh yes, I did forget the Van Cliburn/Kondrashin recording: Outstanding!!!

V


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The OP had through creating this thread in 2008, a very interesting question about the original version of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1.

After reading page one of the replies, not one poster answered his question.

And folks wonder why posters leave TC???


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

hpowders said:


> The OP had through creating this thread in 2008, a very interesting question about the original version of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1.
> 
> After reading page one of the replies, not one poster answered his question.
> 
> And folks wonder why posters leave TC???


Have a look at page 1 post #15, and on page 4 post #46, which list one of the rare recordings. It is only very rarely heard, so it´s very few who would know it, also today.

As said earlier in the thread, there´s also a version by Berman/Temirkanov of the 1st Concerto´s original version, which I have. The differences are minor however, compared to the more common version. *But Post #34 tells more about it and gives a link*.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Varick said:


> What a fanastic overview of some of these recordings. Being a Richter fan, I was shocked at the blandness of the performance. Even his performance with HvK was not that great. Seeing your review, I now have to acquire the Horowitz/Szell Recording. I have Vlad with Toscanini and always lamented the sound quality, but the performance of that recording is off the charts!
> 
> I think Martha's third movement with Dutoit is excellent, but one of my favorite recordings is Gilels with Reiner. It's all there, passion, phrasing, color, sound quality, etc. *I'm Amazing how bad Gilels is with Mehta, and I can't blame Mehta entirely in this for once, Gilels was definitely off his game on that recording.
> *
> ...


Interesting. Was listening to a critic saying the opposite the other day. Shows how subjective criticism is!


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Interesting. Was listening to a critic saying the opposite the other day. Shows how subjective criticism is!


Yes, the critics seem to love Mehta, Ozawa, and Barenboim. Three of the most lackluster, boring, and bland conductors IMO. Barenboim is a double whammy: I find most of his piano to be slightly better than his conducting (I think his accompaniment with Jacqueline Du Pre to be pretty good), but not much, hence my lament on how many recordings Itzhak Perlman has done with Danny boy that could have "10's" but because Itzhak was never given the proper platform to spring off of, many of them became 8's or 7's.

But to your point, I can't fathom how anyone could listen to Gilels/Reiner, then immediately listen to Gilels/Mehta and clearly hear how awful it is. I don't even think one has to listen to the first in order to hear how poor the second is. Subjective indeed.

V

PS: I'm a big Gilels fan, but he $%*t the bed on that one.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Varick said:


> Oh yes, I did forget the Van Cliburn/Kondrashin recording: Outstanding!!!
> 
> V


Indeed, very lonely at the top,.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Anyhow, with regard to the performing version of the Tchaikovsky First Piano Concerto we are all familiar with, the Cliburn/Kondrashin performance is just about perfect to me.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Interesting. Was listening to a critic saying the opposite the other day. Shows how subjective criticism is!


Indeed so. I liked the Gilels/Reiner; I like the Gilels/Mehta. Subjectivity squared; maybe cubed.


----------

