The second piano concert I like it more than the first, because it is possible to perform more variable ( diverse). Pletnev's abilities allow him to make this concert even more difficult and masterly, but he does it this way to maximally embody the idea of Tchaikovsky, and to show their own emotions from this idea as well. I get great pleasure from this version of the concert.
Extraordinary performance. This is a very complex concert, not too oftently played in public shows, but a very "tchaikovskyan" music. It is not very well known, but it deserves as much glory as the #1 concert.
Have the Pletnev recording of the Tchaikovsky concertos and Concert Fabntasy and love them -- fantastic. He was then and still is, the most superb pianist.
He won the Tchaikovsky Competition at age 19. He is a supremely gifted musician. I have the recording of the "Pathetique" symphony and it is a truly great recording with the Russian Symphony Orchestra. It was recorded at Blackheath Concert Hall in South London, near where I lived. The accoustics are superb and it is used a lot for recordings and concerts.
OMG he tosses off this technically difficult concerto like Chop Sticks.... He is such a fabulous pianist. I hope to hear him in the Schumann concerto in March 2022
For me, this 2nd movement is a cello, violin and piano concerto.. and it's almost like a 2nd movement that you expect from a tchaikovsky symphony, so innovative and characteristic of him.
LOL near the end of the cadenza conductor looks over his left shoulder, like: WTF did I just hear? This performance makes me laugh and cry with delight and astonishment at the same time.
The pianist Pletnev and Conductor Fedoseyev are great interpreters of Tchaikovsky's music. This is a wonderful performance, with a bit faster tempo than most other performances which is preferred in the second movement but not for the last movement, IMO. Throughout history, there have been some who prefer this concerto over Tchaikovsky's #1. I chalk it up as the top two greatest Piano concertos in history of classical music followed by Chopin's and Rachmaninov's. The dreamlike melodies in the first and second movements are fabulous and piano parts require virtuosic skills fit for the likes of Pletnev. For that reason, both Tchaikovsky concertos were considered unplayable at the time of their release.
A fabulous and underperformed concerto, but I would have to rank it behind the two by Brahms, therefore the 3rd "greatest". But after all isn't that what classical music is all about, a lively debate of opinions respectfully clashing.
..thankyou, i wondered who the conductor is.. i do wonder who the orchestra is as well and when this was done.. mr pletnev (sorry about spelling) conducted the Manfred symphony in my town some thirty years ago with his russian orchestra and i'm sure he looked older then, than he does here in this video, (if you follow!? lol).. ..aside from the magical trio in the second movement, i think this concerto is more straight forward in a classical "concerto" type way and less radical than his first..? and talking of classical piano concertos, how about Beethoven? 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th..?
Been re-hearing for years now. Pletnev excels...and the 2nd Movement piano trio...OMyGod....and Vladimir Ivanovich Fedoseyev "(Russian: Владимир Иванович Федосе́ев; born 5 August 1932, in Leningrad, Soviet Union) is a Soviet and Russian conductor, accordionist, teacher. People's Artist of the USSR (1980). Laureate of the USSR State Prize (1989) and the Glinka State Prize of the RSFSR (1970). Full Commander of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland". Artistic director and chief conductor of the Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra since 1974......." Thank you.....from Acapulco!
This performance is superb, though Yuja Wang's performance of the G major concerto is utterly transcendent. I cannot understand the enormous advances in technique that pianists have achieved during my lifetime. The old-fashioned white-tie-and-tails concert painists of my young days - Horowitz, Rubinstein, Kempff - couldn't even come close to what young performers nowadays can do. Every time I hear these apparently effortless techniques and astonishing tempi, I struggle to believe my ears. I feel quite sure that, fifty years ago, such things would have been thought impossible, Wonderful! Wonderful!
Actually, technique has nothing to do with it. There are, literally, a thousand pianists living who can play this. But, if you really LISTEN, (don't LOOK) you'll hear the difference between this and any other performance - this is Russian soul infused with fire, power, majesty, something only hinted at, or imitated in many other performances.......
@@SonicDykstra Hell, I know that; in my younger days, even I could play it. Not like this, though! The energy, the flair, the confidence, the sheer exuberance of this modern generation of pianists - starting, perhaps, with Martha Argerich and Pascal Roget - is to me, extraordinary; and *of course* it's a mastery of technique; it's a degree of technical mastery that, fifty years ago, we couldn't have dreamt of.
Awesome as Pletnev is, his sonority and power virtually unmatched, I still much prefer Igor Zhukov's titanic recording with Rozhdestvensky. Where Pletnev is sometimes capricious to the point of being eccentric, Zhukov sustains the argument with iron logic, thus creating much more impact. It's personal preference of course. I still think Pletnev is one of the very best in Tchaikovsky, be it at the piano or holding the baton.
Maestro Pletnev is a genius! What a brilliant mind he has to be able to play this so beautifully from memory..The orchestra complements his masterful playing with the best Tchaikovsky Concerto No.2 in G major Op.44 on the planet.
Moisewitsch and Tcherkassky recorded this decades ago but it has very little interest .However the second movement(trio concerto)melodies are inspired and the development of second subject in first movement is nt bad -not memorable just not bad.Pletnev makes it all convincing !Last movement might bring me back -it's usually a chore listening to this concerto but I'm coming round.The great rarely heard romantic concerto is Strauss ' Burleske !
Thanks for posting, but it is a pity that there are no details of the orchestra and conductor. They really should have been credited: it's not a piano solo.
The conductor is Vladimir Fedoseyev. The orchestra could be (not sure) Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra based on the age of Pletnev and grainy quality of recording.
Incredible power and amazing technique! This is one of 2 performances I won’t be without. And I’ve heard them all. The other notable performance is from Bruce Liu. Pletnev plays it faster - with more power, but Bruce play this with more clarity, more dynamic range, pathos and musicality. Can’t be without either…
This is my favorite Tchaikovsky piano concerto. Here both Pletnev & orchestra are superb. Though I only knew & loved the Bь minor concerto in my teens (whose popularity may be due, in part, to the wondrous opening in Dь Major not Bь minor), In my early 20's I first heard a recording of #2 and loved it more though this was the arrangement by Tchsikovsky's cousin which not only has cuts in the 1st movement but transfers passages from orchestra to piano & vice versa. I am delighted to hear here Mikhail Pletnev's masterful performance of Tchaikovsky's original. After Rachmaninoff's piano concertos this is my next favorite. The only weak movement is the 3rd, but he composed for what audiences demand, a relaxing 3rd movement. Of course on recordings I usually only listen to the 1st movement of this magnificent concero.
Is that a tear Pletnev is wiping during the glorious 2nd movement. If so it is well understood. The intense beauty and serenity of such music can not only explain it but raises the question of how it doesn't happen more often. I once heard Horowitz say that he never displayed such emotion during his performances because what moved him was deeply burried within his gut. I don't buy it. To me it is as comunicative as anything else shown.
Very probably, yes. I’ve heard him quite a lot ‘live’ since 2001 and the most moving performance of his was indeed Tchaikovsky: ‘Chant elegiaque ‘ op 72 no 15. , as an encore after Tchaikovsky’s’ grand sonata ‘ op 37, in March 2003 at the Barbican centre, in London. Mischa’s pianism has always fascinated and mesmerised me, in equal terms, but this truly was the one occasion where he moved me to tears.
Karl Lieck No, it's much more comfortable. The passagework is less intricate, often repeats literally, most of piano part is either without orchestra at all or requires little attention to ensemble issues and, last but not least, Tchaikovsky has tons of time for the pianist to rest.
The most qualified person to give an opinion is one who plays both. Such a person is "Stephen Hough". At an interview in 2010 before playing the Tchaikovsky concerti at the BBC Proms, he stated (and claimed that he had spoken to other pianists who agreed) that once you had learnt the notes of Rachmaninov, the piano part fitted "like a glove". Not so, the Tchaikovsky. Further proof can be seen by the fact that pianists of the calibre of Denis Matsuev actually make cuts to Tchaikovsky 2, whereas he plays the "ossia" cadenza in Rach.3 uncut. Arthur Rubinstein was apparently interviewed in the 1970s and candidly stated that he did not play Tchaik.2 because it was far harder than any other concerto he knew. The American pianist William Wolfram described Tchaikovsky 2 as "possibly the most physically taxing concerto that I play". Another point: some of the most difficult parts of Rach.3 are smothered by heavy orchestration, whereas Tchaik.2 has more exposed piano parts (because Tchaikovsky didn't like the sound of piano and orchestra playing together).
With all due respect, I also happen to be a person who plays all the aforementioned concerti, and I rest my case. Indeed Mr. Hough is quite right that Rachmaninov 3 fits like a glove, i.e. is very pianistic. But it doesn't say that it's less difficult. For instance, the Schumann concerto is pianistically much less comfortable or "glove-like" than Rachmaninov 3, but it is at the same much easier than the latter. Hence a higher pianistic comfortability may well combine with greater difficulty. As for "the most taxing concerto" per Mr. Wolfram, I may agree that there are approx. 3 or 4 places in Tchaikovsky 2, about 10 seconds each, that are physically more demanding in terms of calories expenditure than Tchaikovsky 1, but there are many places in Tchaikovsky 1, let alone Rachmaninov 3, that make these concerti more difficult in general than Tchaikovsky 2. Because "taxing" doesn't exhaust the idea of difficulty. For example, the last variation in the second movement of Rachmaninov 3 in terms of difficulty (necessity to play precisely, clearly, without arm pressure, and maintaining the tempo) is beyond any place in Tchaikovsky 2, even the cadenza's Prestissimo (because, hilariously difficult as it is, it may be played in a more or less arbitrary "Prestissimo" unlike the place in Rachmaninov 3). Regarding the heavier orchestration in Rachmaninov 3 which is true, I assume you meant that the pianist needn't spend less energy since he is not heard well anyway. I find the matter to be the opposite, because in the concerto the pianist is expected to be heard nonetheless and, if played well, the piano part in Rachmaninov 3 is still quite discernible including exactly what the pianist plays. Hence, it is as necessary to play clearly and cleanly in Rachmaninov 3 as it is in Tchaikovsky 2, with the additional task to "keep the head above the water level", that is, the orchestra sound, which makes it more difficult, not easier. And, I presume, we let alone the question of relative musical difficulty. :-) Because, high as the musical tasks in Tchaikovsky 2 are, it is quite clear how to achieve them (not meaning it's easy) whereas in Tchaikovsky 1 there are places that pose musical tasks ineffably high and which it isn't unequivocally clear how to achieve. As Maria Grinberg used to say, there are no musical problems in Tchaikovsky 2.
Well, I'm afraid that I can only quote Stephen Hough further. He said that the pianists he had spoken to felt safer playing Rachmaninov. The thing is, I have heard very poor performances of Tchaikovsky 2 where the pianist has let it drag and there are very obvious technical errors. I have actually heard very few really poor performances of Rach.3. And why would a pianist like Denis Matsuev cut a major chunk out of the prestissimo cadenza in the first movement of Tchaik.2 yet opt to play the ossia cadenza in the 1st movement of Rach.3? I conclude that he felt that the Tchaik. cadenza was too hazardous. I have sight read through Tchaikovsky 1, 2,3 and Concert Fantasia but never properly "learnt" them, and I'll tell you what I've noticed: Yes, he's easier to SIGHT READ because the harmony is more rooted in the 19th century (as you'd expect!). However, it's when you come to getting the whole thing up to concert speed and virtuosity...making a real performance out of it, that it outweighs Rachmaninov in terms of technical challenge. The main issue with Rachmaninov is that he writes a lot of notes, and these have to be committed to memory. However, once you have committed them to memory, the music largely plays itself. Back to the prestissimo cadenza in Tchaik.2: What is astonishing is how totally different it sounds when a pianist plays it slowly from one who plays it truly "prestissimo". Rachmaninov sounds much the same slow as fast - fast being simply a speeded up version of slow. What I am suggesting is that Rachmaninov can be appreciated at different speed levels (allowing greater interpretive flexibility), whereas to convey Tchaikovsky's true intentions (eg. cadenza mentioned), you HAVE to play it something like the speed Pletnev does here. Matsuev knew this, but also knew he couldn't maintain that speed, so he cut it. Actually, Pletnev here is about the only person I have heard who plays it consistently prestissimo.
Anyone who would debate the fact that the third movement finale and the cadenzas in the first movement in this performance don't qualify as pianism of the front rank- probably of supernatural standards need their ears and eyes tested!
Wrong. There is no comparison to the difficulty of the first concerto. This is a little ditty. All the passages are easy under the hand. And it's just devoid of melody.
D. Boudewijn Aussems It is the full version, I've followed it with the score that you can find here: imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No.2,_Op.44_(Tchaikovsky,_Pyotr)
Julio David Auster There are two versions in your link; this performance is following version B, which is not the full version as Tchaikovsky intended it. Please follow with version A, the complete one, and you will notice that especially the second part is missing a lot of bars. ( 31:22. :When you listen carefully you notice the abrupt change...)
For France or Austria or USSR&RUSI&USA paied from me withMr. koyama HISAO as my ancle for keeping arts this higher quality promoting for making safty strong er healthy world on UN guids.I must check as my own self jobs.I can not pay compose fee& costs more but making new those scores on duties you&me as safty art promoters with this musicwith yours pitchi of piano for making higher levels beautiful art mejor good charning cheerful hopeful grand musics with new creating scores promoting,too .
Saverio Beccacece Mi piacerebbepoter comprendere meglio il senso di "russo".... Suono "russo"... E via dicendo. Sarebbe cosi gentile da spiegarlo? Grazie.
Видеоклипы
Идеально технически, идеально по настроению, идеальный ансамбль с идеальным оркестром и дирижером? Почему нельзя поставить сразу тысячу лайков?
Glorious piano playing!
Fabulous electricity in 1st mvt cadenza!!!
Pletnev is fantastic and leaves everyone else in the shade.
Amazing concert. They don't produce these nowadays anymore. Mikhail Pletnev is genius !!
21:00 the opening of the 2nd movement,the dialogue from the violin to the cello then the piano enters,that’s so beautiful!
Yes....the whole section starting around 28:00......Astounding......BRAVO from Mexico City!
Гениальный музыкант большой труженник .Спасибо за прекрасного русского музыканта .
После Плетнева не хочется никого слушать.Гениальный Музыкант!❤❤❤
10:56 to 11:50-ish Pletnev made the piano sang like an opera singer. That was beautiful
Праздник!!! Брависсимо Чайковскому, Плетневу, дирижеру и окестру! Соло виолончели и скрипки во 2й части-душа поет!!! Браво!
This is awesome interpretation of the Piano Concerto no 2!!!
The second piano concert I like it more than the first, because it is possible to perform more variable ( diverse).
Pletnev's abilities allow him to make this concert even more difficult and masterly, but he does it this way to maximally embody the idea of Tchaikovsky, and to show their own emotions from this idea as well. I get great pleasure from this version of the concert.
Pletnev is a giant. His interpretation of this concert is glorious.
그의 감성은 예리하면서도 고급스럽습니다
Три гения Чайковский Плетнев и Федосеев .Это уникальная запись музыки.
Extraordinary performance. This is a very complex concert, not too oftently played in public shows, but a very "tchaikovskyan" music. It is not very well known, but it deserves as much glory as the #1 concert.
In the words of a musical director, "we have to make room for other composers too, or else we would be playing Tchaikovsky all the time."
No it doesn't.
@@abe_48 I like your music director, and he’s absolutely right 😂♥️
Совершенно согласен !
Have the Pletnev recording of the Tchaikovsky concertos and Concert Fabntasy and love them -- fantastic. He was then and still is, the most superb pianist.
What a talent at 23 - still a talented player at 57. Long may he continue to play as it is all just gorgeous.
He won the Tchaikovsky Competition at age 19. He is a supremely gifted musician. I have the recording of the "Pathetique" symphony and it is a truly great recording with the Russian Symphony Orchestra. It was recorded at Blackheath Concert Hall in South London, near where I lived. The accoustics are superb and it is used a lot for recordings and concerts.
Eccezionale maestro Pletnev. Ciaikovskij, la sua musica è un sogno meraviglioso.
OMG he tosses off this technically difficult concerto like Chop Sticks.... He is such a fabulous pianist. I hope to hear him in the Schumann concerto in March 2022
There are a ton of mistakes in the first movement. If you want to hear how it’s supposed to be played, listen to Kantorow…
@@LC-ig2jm no, listen to Zhukov or even Matsuev… Kantorow just doesn’t have the power or stamina to play this properly.
@@LC-ig2jm Вопрос к вам . Вы за спорт в исполнительстве ? Кто больше ошибок наделал - для того вы музыку слушаете !?
@@billyfisher1539 Вопрос к вам . Вы за спорт в исполнительстве ? Кто больше ошибок наделал - для того вы музыку слушаете !?
He clearly has seven fingers on each hand! Fabulous.
I prefer the No2 to No1 even more after this superb perfomance.
His last movement is incredible
That's not just because this performance, it just is better...
Sorry, but I still prefer the first. Pletnevis superb, but this is not really a concerto,but an orchestra piece with piano obbligato
Ugh. The 2nd is an awful piece. No comparison to the masterful first.
@@martinriha3729 Bullshit.
Phenomenal!!!
Это гениальное исполнение! Плетнев величайший музыкант современности! Оркестр великолепен!
For me, this 2nd movement is a cello, violin and piano concerto.. and it's almost like a 2nd movement that you expect from a tchaikovsky symphony, so innovative and characteristic of him.
Молодой Плетнев - особый жанр. Гений
Neverovatno !!!
Incredibly !!
Incroyablement!
Плетнёв&Федоссев&БСО - лучшее и представить нельзя!
Pletnev&Fedoseyev!
Это БСО?
LOL near the end of the cadenza conductor looks over his left shoulder, like: WTF did I just hear? This performance makes me laugh and cry with delight and astonishment at the same time.
My God what virtuosity.
Astonishing performance by M. Pletnev. Each of his interpretations is immortal.
The pianist Pletnev and Conductor Fedoseyev are great interpreters of Tchaikovsky's music. This is a wonderful performance, with a bit faster tempo than most other performances which is preferred in the second movement but not for the last movement, IMO. Throughout history, there have been some who prefer this concerto over Tchaikovsky's #1. I chalk it up as the top two greatest Piano concertos in history of classical music followed by Chopin's and Rachmaninov's.
The dreamlike melodies in the first and second movements are fabulous and piano parts require virtuosic skills fit for the likes of Pletnev. For that reason, both Tchaikovsky concertos were considered unplayable at the time of their release.
A fabulous and underperformed concerto, but I would have to rank it behind the two by Brahms, therefore the 3rd "greatest". But after all isn't that what classical music is all about, a lively debate of opinions respectfully clashing.
..thankyou, i wondered who the conductor is.. i do wonder who the orchestra is as well and when this was done.. mr pletnev (sorry about spelling) conducted the Manfred symphony in my town some thirty years ago with his russian orchestra and i'm sure he looked older then, than he does here in this video, (if you follow!? lol)..
..aside from the magical trio in the second movement, i think this concerto is more straight forward in a classical "concerto" type way and less radical than his first..? and talking of classical piano concertos, how about Beethoven? 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th..?
Definitely agree it is unplayable.
when was s this recorded ? and what Orchestra?
@@user-fn1dn3fb2b Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra, the time of recording could be 1991.
I wonder why this never gets air time on the classical radio stations in Western Australia. Its the #1 in Bb that always gets played.
Steinwaygrande because it's 42 minutes long.
@@andrewpetersen5272 does that stop the Brahms B-flat? That’s slightly longer than this.
Bravo!!!!! 👏👏👏💯💖
Minute 10:53 to 12:15.......this is so great.....unbelieveable
The cadenza is great though! Of course his pianism is fantastic!
No doubt about that!
amazing!!!!!!!!
Wonderful music. Elegant, graceful, touching, fresh, inspiring concerto.... Bravo Tchaikovsky!
Been re-hearing for years now. Pletnev excels...and the 2nd Movement piano trio...OMyGod....and Vladimir Ivanovich Fedoseyev "(Russian: Владимир Иванович Федосе́ев; born 5 August 1932, in Leningrad, Soviet Union) is a Soviet and Russian conductor, accordionist, teacher. People's Artist of the USSR (1980). Laureate of the USSR State Prize (1989) and the Glinka State Prize of the RSFSR (1970). Full Commander of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland". Artistic director and chief conductor of the Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra since 1974......." Thank you.....from Acapulco!
I love this piece.
One of the finest interpretations of this I have ever heard,perfect tempo
True....Pletnev AND Lugansky OWN this concerto....and they plan the UNABRIDGED version.
@@steveegallo3384 and now Alexandre Kantorow !
@@roselynechevrier2244 Alexandre Kantorow owns this brilliant piece! 🌟
Bruce Liu and Kantorow!
Until Bruce Liu mastered it this year. 2022….
This is an incredible performance!!!
L'orchestrazione di Tchaikovsky è stupenda, inarrivabile.Berliotz al confronto è un dilettante!
BEST version ever!!
Браво Плетнев! Великолепное исполнение! 👏👏👏👏👏🌹🌹
brilliant
Thanks.
1악장 소름 돋는다 역시 대작곡가,,,
This performance is superb, though Yuja Wang's performance of the G major concerto is utterly transcendent. I cannot understand the enormous advances in technique that pianists have achieved during my lifetime. The old-fashioned white-tie-and-tails concert painists of my young days - Horowitz, Rubinstein, Kempff - couldn't even come close to what young performers nowadays can do. Every time I hear these apparently effortless techniques and astonishing tempi, I struggle to believe my ears. I feel quite sure that, fifty years ago, such things would have been thought impossible, Wonderful! Wonderful!
Actually, technique has nothing to do with it. There are, literally, a thousand pianists living who can play this. But, if you really LISTEN, (don't LOOK) you'll hear the difference between this and any other performance - this is Russian soul infused with fire, power, majesty, something only hinted at, or imitated in many other performances.......
@@SonicDykstra Hell, I know that; in my younger days, even I could play it. Not like this, though! The energy, the flair, the confidence, the sheer exuberance of this modern generation of pianists - starting, perhaps, with Martha Argerich and Pascal Roget - is to me, extraordinary; and *of course* it's a mastery of technique; it's a degree of technical mastery that, fifty years ago, we couldn't have dreamt of.
Are you kidding? This concerto is so hard that several of the most celebrated virtuosi has called it un-playable.
Including Argerich and Horowitz…
MA-RA-VI-LLO-SO. En todos los sentidos
Было бы интересно указать в описании оркестр, дирижёра, и, в качестве опции, зал. А то получается Михаил Плетнёв исполнил всё самостоятельно.
I love this ❤❤❤❤❤
superb
Perfeito ✨
Music doesnt get any better than this
Великолепно! Спасибо 🙏! 🇮🇱
Awesome as Pletnev is, his sonority and power virtually unmatched, I still much prefer Igor Zhukov's titanic recording with Rozhdestvensky. Where Pletnev is sometimes capricious to the point of being eccentric, Zhukov sustains the argument with iron logic, thus creating much more impact. It's personal preference of course. I still think Pletnev is one of the very best in Tchaikovsky, be it at the piano or holding the baton.
Comme vous, malgré le grand talent de Pletnev dans ce concerto, je lui préfère Igor Joukov qui en demeure pour moi le meilleur interprète.
Блистательное исполнение. Десятки раз 2-ой концерт слушал, но в исполнении Плетнева -- это фантастика!!!
Immenso capolavoro. Eseguito in maniera eccelsa.
When your piano concerto is more famous for its violin and cello duet part
Maestro Pletnev😍😍😍😍😍👏👏👏👏👏👌👌👌👌👌
Che beautifull musica
The cadenza is other-worldly pianism. I love how the future conductor makes an appearance via the LH when it is free.
Maestro Pletnev is a genius! What a brilliant mind he has to be able to play this so beautifully from memory..The orchestra complements his masterful playing with the best Tchaikovsky Concerto No.2 in G major Op.44 on the planet.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
belle performance , j'aime aussi celle de Emil_Gilels-Maazel
Holy crap.
A superior concerto to the B flat minor
How does a human get this good?
Pletnev is the GOaT
Moisewitsch and Tcherkassky recorded this decades ago but it has very little interest .However the second movement(trio concerto)melodies are inspired and the development of second subject in first movement is nt bad -not memorable just not bad.Pletnev makes it all convincing !Last movement might bring me back -it's usually a chore listening to this concerto but I'm coming round.The great rarely heard romantic concerto is Strauss ' Burleske !
What the Name of Celloplayer who Play Solo in the 2d movement?
Thanks for posting, but it is a pity that there are no details of the orchestra and conductor. They really should have been credited: it's not a piano solo.
The conductor is Vladimir Fedoseyev. The orchestra could be (not sure) Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra based on the age of Pletnev and grainy quality of recording.
@@abe_48 you are absolutely correct. This info must be in the description.
Incredible power and amazing technique!
This is one of 2 performances I won’t be without. And I’ve heard them all.
The other notable performance is from Bruce Liu.
Pletnev plays it faster - with more power, but Bruce play this with more clarity, more dynamic range, pathos and musicality.
Can’t be without either…
I agree, absolutely. Bruce’s London debut was exceptional and invigorating.
Check Gilels's interpretation
Viktor Simon ❤️
Прекрасное исполнение.Удовольствие. С большой энергией и задором! Так надо? Или это только ваша интерпретация?
My favorite part is,,, 10:50
Endowed with incredible music genes are hereditary multi generational and God given gift like the alignment of planets a celestial phenomenon.
It looks like the conductor slaps the viola player's head at 06:27 😃
yes ,its absolutely brilliant ,but also listen to Shura Cherkasky : totally different ,but
equally stunning!
Peter Lunow -- But cheated out of the 2nd Mvt string duet......
This is my favorite Tchaikovsky piano concerto. Here both Pletnev & orchestra are superb. Though I only knew & loved the Bь minor concerto in my teens (whose popularity may be due, in part, to the wondrous opening in
Dь Major not Bь minor), In my early 20's I first heard a recording of #2 and loved it more though this was the arrangement by Tchsikovsky's cousin which not only has cuts in the 1st movement but transfers passages from orchestra to piano & vice versa. I am delighted to hear here Mikhail Pletnev's masterful performance of Tchaikovsky's original. After Rachmaninoff's piano concertos this is my next favorite. The only weak movement is the 3rd, but he composed for what audiences demand, a relaxing 3rd movement. Of course on recordings I usually only listen to the 1st movement of this magnificent concero.
Actually, the 3rd movement is a tour de force for virtuoso pianists of the highest caliber (Kantorow, Bruce Liu)…
Без купюр! Вторая редакция! Великолепно! Чайковский верно согласился с некоторыми сокращениями!
00:27
34:01
Did you like this my designed hall with your named tune piano?
아름다운 연주입니다. 플레트네프처럼 피아니스트들이 바이올린 솔로 뺏어가지 않으면 좋겠네요. :)
You wonder why Horowitz didnt play it. This is the kind of manic cadenza he was aces at.
Is that a tear Pletnev is wiping during the glorious 2nd movement. If so it is well understood. The intense beauty and serenity of such music can not only explain it but raises the question of how it doesn't happen more often. I once heard Horowitz say that he never displayed such emotion during his performances because what moved him was deeply burried within his gut. I don't buy it. To me it is as comunicative as anything else shown.
I saw it too. Maybe it's about Russian soul...
Very probably, yes.
I’ve heard him quite a lot ‘live’ since 2001 and the most moving performance of his was indeed Tchaikovsky: ‘Chant elegiaque ‘ op 72 no 15.
, as an encore after Tchaikovsky’s’ grand sonata ‘ op 37, in March 2003 at the Barbican centre, in London.
Mischa’s pianism has always fascinated and mesmerised me, in equal terms, but this truly was the one occasion where he moved me to tears.
Horowitz did weep tho during his Vienna recital in 1987 when he performed the encore The poet speaks from Kinderszenen by Schumann
27:07 27:27
Could this concerto be even more difficult to play than Rach.3?
Karl Lieck
yes, it is more difficult.
Karl Lieck No, it's much more comfortable. The passagework is less intricate, often repeats literally, most of piano part is either without orchestra at all or requires little attention to ensemble issues and, last but not least, Tchaikovsky has tons of time for the pianist to rest.
The most qualified person to give an opinion is one who plays both. Such a person is "Stephen Hough". At an interview in 2010 before playing the Tchaikovsky concerti at the BBC Proms, he stated (and claimed that he had spoken to other pianists who agreed) that once you had learnt the notes of Rachmaninov, the piano part fitted "like a glove". Not so, the Tchaikovsky. Further proof can be seen by the fact that pianists of the calibre of Denis Matsuev actually make cuts to Tchaikovsky 2, whereas he plays the "ossia" cadenza in Rach.3 uncut. Arthur Rubinstein was apparently interviewed in the 1970s and candidly stated that he did not play Tchaik.2 because it was far harder than any other concerto he knew. The American pianist William Wolfram described Tchaikovsky 2 as "possibly the most physically taxing concerto that I play". Another point: some of the most difficult parts of Rach.3 are smothered by heavy orchestration, whereas Tchaik.2 has more exposed piano parts (because Tchaikovsky didn't like the sound of piano and orchestra playing together).
With all due respect, I also happen to be a person who plays all the aforementioned concerti, and I rest my case.
Indeed Mr. Hough is quite right that Rachmaninov 3 fits like a glove, i.e. is very pianistic. But it doesn't say that it's less difficult. For instance, the Schumann concerto is pianistically much less comfortable or "glove-like" than Rachmaninov 3, but it is at the same much easier than the latter. Hence a higher pianistic comfortability may well combine with greater difficulty.
As for "the most taxing concerto" per Mr. Wolfram, I may agree that there are approx. 3 or 4 places in Tchaikovsky 2, about 10 seconds each, that are physically more demanding in terms of calories expenditure than Tchaikovsky 1, but there are many places in Tchaikovsky 1, let alone Rachmaninov 3, that make these concerti more difficult in general than Tchaikovsky 2. Because "taxing" doesn't exhaust the idea of difficulty. For example, the last variation in the second movement of Rachmaninov 3 in terms of difficulty (necessity to play precisely, clearly, without arm pressure, and maintaining the tempo) is beyond any place in Tchaikovsky 2, even the cadenza's Prestissimo (because, hilariously difficult as it is, it may be played in a more or less arbitrary "Prestissimo" unlike the place in Rachmaninov 3).
Regarding the heavier orchestration in Rachmaninov 3 which is true, I assume you meant that the pianist needn't spend less energy since he is not heard well anyway. I find the matter to be the opposite, because in the concerto the pianist is expected to be heard nonetheless and, if played well, the piano part in Rachmaninov 3 is still quite discernible including exactly what the pianist plays. Hence, it is as necessary to play clearly and cleanly in Rachmaninov 3 as it is in Tchaikovsky 2, with the additional task to "keep the head above the water level", that is, the orchestra sound, which makes it more difficult, not easier.
And, I presume, we let alone the question of relative musical difficulty. :-) Because, high as the musical tasks in Tchaikovsky 2 are, it is quite clear how to achieve them (not meaning it's easy) whereas in Tchaikovsky 1 there are places that pose musical tasks ineffably high and which it isn't unequivocally clear how to achieve. As Maria Grinberg used to say, there are no musical problems in Tchaikovsky 2.
Well, I'm afraid that I can only quote Stephen Hough further. He said that the pianists he had spoken to felt safer playing Rachmaninov. The thing is, I have heard very poor performances of Tchaikovsky 2 where the pianist has let it drag and there are very obvious technical errors. I have actually heard very few really poor performances of Rach.3. And why would a pianist like Denis Matsuev cut a major chunk out of the prestissimo cadenza in the first movement of Tchaik.2 yet opt to play the ossia cadenza in the 1st movement of Rach.3? I conclude that he felt that the Tchaik. cadenza was too hazardous.
I have sight read through Tchaikovsky 1, 2,3 and Concert Fantasia but never properly "learnt" them, and I'll tell you what I've noticed: Yes, he's easier to SIGHT READ because the harmony is more rooted in the 19th century (as you'd expect!). However, it's when you come to getting the whole thing up to concert speed and virtuosity...making a real performance out of it, that it outweighs Rachmaninov in terms of technical challenge. The main issue with Rachmaninov is that he writes a lot of notes, and these have to be committed to memory. However, once you have committed them to memory, the music largely plays itself.
Back to the prestissimo cadenza in Tchaik.2: What is astonishing is how totally different it sounds when a pianist plays it slowly from one who plays it truly "prestissimo". Rachmaninov sounds much the same slow as fast - fast being simply a speeded up version of slow. What I am suggesting is that Rachmaninov can be appreciated at different speed levels (allowing greater interpretive flexibility), whereas to convey Tchaikovsky's true intentions (eg. cadenza mentioned), you HAVE to play it something like the speed Pletnev does here. Matsuev knew this, but also knew he couldn't maintain that speed, so he cut it. Actually, Pletnev here is about the only person I have heard who plays it consistently prestissimo.
Anyone who would debate the fact that the third movement finale and the cadenzas in the first movement in this performance don't qualify as pianism of the front rank- probably of supernatural standards need their ears and eyes tested!
Yes....and some Prozac and a polo-mallet!
Wrong. There is no comparison to the difficulty of the first concerto. This is a little ditty. All the passages are easy under the hand. And it's just devoid of melody.
Russian works should be played by Russian artists. They put strong beautiful Russian aroma into the music.
7:40
10:54
What orchestra is this? Who is the conductor ? And where is this hall ?
Love this conductor's style.
looks like Vladimir fedoseyev
Yo dawg , we heard you liked cadenzas, so ---
Sorry..los peques no escribien nunca..Director..Quien ? Orquesta ?..
The ideal tchaikovski concerto : 1st mvt of 2nd concerto, 2nd and 3rd mvt of 3rd concerto...
Oh please. Just stop.
This is NOT the full version! The middle part is not complete, it doesn't follow the score of the composer, too bad....
D. Boudewijn Aussems It is the full version, I've followed it with the score that you can find here:
imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No.2,_Op.44_(Tchaikovsky,_Pyotr)
Julio David Auster There are two versions in your link; this performance is following version B, which is not the full version as Tchaikovsky intended it. Please follow with version A, the complete one, and you will notice that especially the second part is missing a lot of bars. ( 31:22. :When you listen carefully you notice the abrupt change...)
I've followed version A, not Siloti's one (version B). Look it yourself. In B version the violin and cello parts are quite insignificant.
For France or Austria or USSR&RUSI&USA paied from me withMr. koyama HISAO as my ancle for keeping arts this higher quality promoting for making safty strong er healthy world on UN guids.I must check as my own self jobs.I can not pay compose fee& costs more but making new those scores on duties you&me as safty art promoters with this musicwith yours pitchi of piano for making higher levels beautiful art mejor good charning cheerful hopeful grand musics with new creating scores promoting,too .
UNE CADENCE UN PEU ACCELEREE ??
I prefer Tatiana Nikolayeva's interpretation, even more russian
Saverio Beccacece Mi piacerebbepoter comprendere meglio il senso di "russo".... Suono "russo"... E via dicendo. Sarebbe cosi gentile da spiegarlo? Grazie.
I’m model and Chopin not playing piano.
38:10 Stalin playing horn