# New to Concertos



## socksband101 (Sep 9, 2007)

I have been exploring most romantic symphonies lately. Granted, there have been some searing holes in my collection, most notably Beethoven's 9th and the majority of Mahler, Dvorjak, Bruckner, and Sibelius. 

However, the symphony is starting to become a little monotonous, and I wish to put it on hold while I listen to something different. I have decided to listen to some concertos, and am not quite sure which ones to approach. Any recommendations for Piano, Violin, and other Miscelanious concertos would be most welcome.


----------



## Mr Salek (Apr 11, 2006)

forget wigs, imo the best violin concertos are beethoven and dvorak. the major ones also include brahms, bruch x 2, sibelius, mozart x 5 and tchaikovsky which are all definitely worth a look. then you have earlier ones, lots of good stuff by vivaldi and bach and modern ones by the likes of prokofiev, shostakovich and even more recently philip glass. then there are also the ones that are primarily virtuosic such as vieuxtemps, wieniawski and paganini all of which wrote several.

piano-wise i'm no expert but rachmaninov, beethoven, tchaikovsky, mozart and mendelssohn all did cracking jobs.

hope that made some sense, feel free to ask if you need more information, opus numbers etc.


----------



## confuoco (Feb 8, 2008)

The best violin concertos in the repertoire are probably Beethoven and Brahms. I love them both (Brahms more), however, Sibelius concerto remains my favourite, it is my jewel. Less serious, but also very famous is Mendelssohn concerto, prototype of the Romantic violin concerto. We add Bruch No. 1 and Tchaikovsky and I think we have 6 the most famous and the most frequently performed violin concertos. 

What about piano concertos, I guess that many people don't agree with me, but in my opinion two concertos by Brahms are the best in the repertoire by far. Especially grand concerto in B major is invincible The King of piano concertos. Than I consider Schumann concerto especially beautiful and worthful. Grieg concerto, often compared to it, has no match with Schumann (in my opinion), but maybe you will like it. And of course you shouldn't miss a smash hit - Tchaikovsky No. 1. From the 20th century I can reccomend Ravel in G major (but also in D), Bartok No. 3, Concerto for 2 pianos by Poulenc and Prokofiev No. 1 and 3. 

If Brahms No. 2 is The King of piano concertos, The King of cello concertos is (no doubt) Dvorak. Another piece of great beauty (but also sadness and nostalgy) is Elgar. I love also Schumann, I thnik it takes longer time to come through it, but definitely it is while. Heart-lighted Saint-Saens concerto is also a good choice. If you are into Romantic period, I don't know if you will like it, but I am big fan of Shostakovich No. 1


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Violin has too many concerti. That's all there is to it.

Viola has a good number of concerti that are grossly neglected, and the two best (in my opinion) are on a single disc: Walton and Rubbra. They're both amazing works, and the interpretation given in this unique disc (which also has a solo piece by Rubbra) rises to the standard of the works.

Cello has a decent number of great concerti that I'm aware of: Elgar, Dvorak, Shostakovich (#1), Saint-Saens (#1), and Schumann all wrote some of the staples of the cello literature. You can't go wrong with any of these.

The only double-bass concerto I know of is that of Einojuhani Rautavaara ("Angel of Dusk") and is somewhat difficult on first listen but is extraordinarily atmospheric music. If you like modern music in general, this is a good concerto for a new perspective on it.

I know very few piano concerti at all... wait, do I know any??? Um... oh! both of Ravel's piano concerti (one for the left hand, by the way, VERY virtuosic!) are stunning works. That's about all I know, but my glaring ignorance of piano literature is sure to be covered by the enormous wealth of knowledge in this forum.

I hope you enjoy your foray into concerti!

-WV


----------



## confuoco (Feb 8, 2008)

World Violist said:


> That's about all I know, but my glaring ignorance of piano literature is sure to be covered by the enormous wealth of knowledge in this forum.
> 
> -WV


Why do you ignore piano literature?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

confuoco said:


> Why do you ignore piano literature?


I don't think it's so much that I purposefully ignore it as I respect it from a safe distance and for all my attempts to get more into it, I'm distracted by something else.


----------



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

socksband101 said:


> I have been exploring most romantic symphonies lately.
> 
> (...) I have decided to listen to some concertos


You *will *enjoy this works:

Brahms: Piano concerto Nº 2
Saint-Saëns: Piano concerto Nº 5
Beethoven: Piano concerto Nº 4
Vincent D'Indy: Symphony on a French Mountain Air for piano & orchestra, Op. 25

In all of them the piano is really blended with the orchestra.

Saint-Saëns 5th is absolutely stunning: the piano part is unbelievably beautiful, lyric even through heavy chord passages... The poetic middle section of the second movement... and the naive joy of the third one... Listening to this concerto is certainly the best way to spend 28 minutes of your life.


----------



## confuoco (Feb 8, 2008)

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> You *will *enjoy this works:
> 
> Saint-Saëns 5th is absolutely stunning: the piano part is unbelievably beautiful, lyric even through heavy chord passages... The poetic middle section of the second movement... and the naive joy of the third one... Listening to this concerto is certainly the best way to spend 28 minutes of your life.


Piano part of Brahms Concerto No. 2 is unbelievably beautiful. I think piano part in Saint-Saens No. 5 is superficial and full of flashy, but spiritless piano figures, that should die together with Liszt. It is quite nice listening to relax, but nothing more.


----------



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

confuoco said:


> I think piano part in Saint-Saens No. 5 is superficial and full of flashy, but spiritless piano figures,





confuoco said:


> that should die together with Liszt.





confuoco said:


> It is quite nice listening to relax, but nothing more.


You may not notice, but that kind of remarks speak more *about you* than about the works you are listing.



confuoco said:


> that should die together with Liszt.


What exactly is wrong with the Liszt concertos?


----------



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

World Violist said:


> The only double-bass concerto I know of is that of Einojuhani Rautavaara ("Angel of Dusk")


Eight years ago I attended the performance of Serge Koussevitzky 's Double Bass concerto. Not a memorable work...

The only other concerto for the instrument that comes to my mind is that by *Eduard Tubin*. It was recorded by Leopold Andrejev, the Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra and Neeme Järvi.


----------



## confuoco (Feb 8, 2008)

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> You may not notice, but that kind of remarks speak more *about you* than about the works you are listing.


I don't know how you mean this. Sentence about nice listening I added, because I don't want to damn this work utterly, because OK, it has good form, fine orchestration, interesting exotic ideas, some nice passages, but piano here often runs through octaves up and down, uselessly and without any reason rooted in logic of music. I don't want to attack your favorite work, but for me it is not work of great value (especially in light of the date of composition). It can provides me relax, when I am tired and not able to absorb some difficult piece, but it lacks depth and wisdom, that I can find for example in Brahms concertos.

Liszt concertos are extrovert exhibitions, where soloist is presented as god and I really don't like this kind of concertos. And Liszt music is unreadable for me generally, maybe this is the main reason. It is just my personal opinion.


----------



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

confuoco said:


> but piano here often runs through octaves up and down, uselessly and without any reason rooted in logic of music.


Actually, the piano runs mostly in sixths, and some thirds. The octaves are a few and they are located in the second movement, where they *do *make sense. Ever heard of Albeniz... or Falla's Noche en los Jardines de España?


----------



## confuoco (Feb 8, 2008)

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Actually, the piano runs mostly in sixths, and some thirds. The octaves are a few and they are located in the second movement, where they *do *make sense. Ever heard of Albeniz... or Falla's Noche en los Jardines de España?


Oh, I didn't mean octaves as intervals. I wrote _run through_ octaves, not _in octaves_ and I ment octaves on the keyboard. When Saint-Saens use some short motif and than let it just repeat through keyboard octaves...for example in conclusion of the third movement. Maybe scales is better word for what I mean. I am sorry, my English music terminology isn't so good as yet.

What Albeniz' work do you have on your mind? Falla's Noche en los Jardines de España I know and I like it.


----------



## Zombo (Oct 5, 2008)

what about the double-bass concerto by Hans Werner Henze? The one by Lars-Erik Larsson?

it's very easy to see why confuoco doesn't like concertos by Liszt since those come in direct opposition with those by Brahms.

Don't forget that the word Concerto comes from "Conserto" but also "Concertare" which means "to cooperate", but also "to oppose" respectively.

Liszt's concertos are of the Virtuostic concerto genre where the orchestra plays a secondary role to complement the skills of the soloist, while Brahms' are more like "Symphony Concertante", which prones equality between soloist and orchestra.

I think a balance of the two is needed, which requires the composition to be both adept at virtuostic and symphonic composition.

IMO this is why Chopin's concertos are lacking, and likewise for Dvorak's (piano).

This is why i like concertos, it's a musical representation of the relationship between the indivual and society


----------



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

confuoco said:


> What Albeniz' work do you have on your mind?


In the ABA structure of _Asturias_, take the B section, for example. Or the Prelude from Hojas de Album Op. 165.


----------



## philhorlings (Oct 27, 2008)

It's a sin that no one has mentioned Prokofiev! Prokofiev's 2nd piano concerto, in particular the first movement, really floors me. The 2nd and 3rd by him are my personal favorites.

I think Barber's violin concerto is an underrated work. Also, try Michael Torke's Saxophone Concerto! Drop dead beautiful, contemporary yet totally accessible.


----------



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

philhorlings said:


> I think Barber's violin concerto is an underrated work.


Why do you think the work is underrated?


----------



## Arleen82592H30 (Oct 8, 2008)

Personally, I dont care how well known it is, but I absolutely adore Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano Concerto. In my opinion, it possesses great depth, and *OF COURSE* the virtuosity. But that is just my opinion.


----------



## confuoco (Feb 8, 2008)

Arleen82592H30 said:


> Personally, I dont care how well known it is, but I absolutely adore Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano Concerto. In my opinion, it possesses great depth, and *OF COURSE* the virtuosity. But that is just my opinion.


Rachmaninov No 3 is very, very, very well known of course


----------



## Arleen82592H30 (Oct 8, 2008)

Yes. Thats why I said that I didnt care how well known it was, meaning that I didnt care that it was ridiculously well known. I like it despite that.


----------



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

Arleen82592H30 said:


> Yes. Thats why I said that I didnt care how well known it was, meaning that I didnt care that it was ridiculously well known. I like it despite that.


That doesn't make sense. A work's popularity shouldn't be accounted when analyzing its _likability_. I don't understand why someone would do that, apart from having an obscure desire to be ridiculous. A friend of mine used to say he liked the Matrix movies very much until they became popular, _mass-property_. Ludicrous thought.


----------



## concertodave (Sep 1, 2008)

Dare I say that maybe the reason that Barber's Violin concerto is underrated is due to it's awful third movement ? don't get me wrong it is in my top 3 all time concertos. It is superbly lyrical with wonderful orchestration but I am unable to listen to more that about a minute of the third movement. Other violin concertos worth considering IMHO opinion are Arensky, Goldmark, Dvorak. For a seldom heard (at least my me!)Cello concerto try Miaskovsky. As for piano concertos try William Sterndale Bennet no 4 and 5 often compared with Mendelssohn but I think better.


----------



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

concertodave said:


> Dare I say that maybe the reason that Barber's Violin concerto is underrated is due to it's awful third movement ?





concertodave said:


> am unable to listen to more that about a minute of the third movement.


Your explanation leads us to think the work is underrated because you don't like the third movement. I was expecting something like: "it's not played often", or "there are not enough good recordings of the work". Those are not at all valid reasons, but they are indeed more reasonable than yours.
What you hear is a presto in moto perpetuo, what exactly do you not like on this movement?



concertodave said:


> Other violin concertos worth considering IMHO opinion are Arensky, *Goldmark*, Dvorak.


We all suppose you mean the *first *violin concerto by Goldmark.

I'm not trying to out-rare your suggestions, but if an obscure work for cello and orchestra is what you are trying this newbie to endure, I suggest Massenet's _Fantaisie pour violoncello et orchestre_. It's an easy tackle.


----------



## confuoco (Feb 8, 2008)

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> That doesn't make sense. A work's popularity shouldn't be accounted when analyzing its _likability_. I don't understand why someone would do that, apart from having an obscure desire to be ridiculous. A friend of mine used to say he liked the Matrix movies very much until they became popular, _mass-property_. Ludicrous thought.


I know one girl, who has good overview in music history and repertoir, and likes Mozart the most and very rarely listens to something different. But when somebody is asking her for her favorite music, she recites very impressive list of composers, because she is afraid to be ridiculous, classified as beginner, listener of pop and Mozart , because "everyone is able to listen to Mozart"


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

Underlined are those who I feel the better half of the lot.
String concertos: Mendelsohn, Sibelius, Beethoven and Brahms violin concerti & Dvorak Cello Concerto 
Piano: Bartók no.1 & 3, Brahms no.1 Prokofiev no.2, Beethoven no.5, Saint-Säens no.2, Schumann and Grieg concerti
Oboe: Richard Strauss concerto

Additionally, some very nice concertos are from the classical and baroque eras, not your thing maybe, but I list them anyways.

J Haydn: 2nd cello concerto and oboe concerto
Mozart: Violin concerto no.5, clarinet & oboe concertos
Vivaldi: Le Quattro Stagioni
Albinoni: Oboe concerto in d-minor, Concerto for 2 oboes in C major Op. 7-11
Bach: Harpsichord concerto in d-minor, Harpsichord concerto in E major, Concerto for oboe & violin in d-minor, concerto for oboe d'amore in A major, Brandenburg concerto no.2


----------



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

concertodave said:


> As for piano concertos try William Sterndale Bennet no 4 and 5 often compared with Mendelssohn *but I think better*.


Why do you think that?


----------

