I think his Revision really made sense. I mean he kept the best bits and just deleted most of the unwieldy transitions. And the rest that was left was polished up to get clearer voicing and to keep up with his pianistic Standards. But it‘s still extremely impressive how he came up with all these beautiful melodies and harmonies in his teenage years. He was really gifted.
One thing I thought was strange was how he completed got rid of the climactic rendition of the main theme of the third movement at 28:24. I always thought it worked perfectly.
I had always been completely astonished how a 17 year old composed the 3rd movement (I hadn't known he revised it), but in this version it makes sense.
Rachmaninoff was a Titan...for me he was the Greatest Composer of the 20th Century by far...The only other Composer that moves me as much is J.S Bach ....centuries apart...but given that Special Gift ...one that goes beyond all Analysis ....we can only thank them for their legacy and keep their Music in the Ears of Our generation which has Such misplaced Value on Great Talent.
Not a single mark was deducted of this student work by the examiner.The examiner did not know what to say. This is much better than what his teacher Arensky could have written !
Oh, I disagree. The lurch to E flat is a clumsy atrocity (to use Chris Osborne's word) which Rakhmaninov substituted for a perfectly good move to D. And one part of this original which I miss in the revision is this theme's recap at 28:24. Without that recap, the E flat major section is out of place --- it doesn't relate to any of the rest of the work, and it isn't even in a related key.
3:54 to 4:10 contains an almost direct quotation of the Grieg piano concerto, on which this work was modelled. I think all of R's revisions were right, although I regret he cut out the jaunty and rather jazzy passage at 26:23 which I absolutely love! Some of the transitions he rightly cut out are pretty awful (e.g. the atrocity at 5:04), but still, a phenomenal effort from someone so young, demonstrating such talent in abundance. It would be fascinating to hear the entries of R's contemporaries in the graduating class; one imagines this work would stand leagues above the rest.
I played Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 1 back at graduation in 1988 and that was the revised version of the original composed in 1891. WOW! Now that I have the recording of the original, I seem to think that it is wonderful if not more dynamic and melancholic. Love Love love xoxoxo
Based on the comments, I'm surprise I'm the only one who prefers this version of his first piano concerto. I just love the fact it sounds more spontaneous than the revisioned one and with less unnecessary virtuosic parts. The melodies are far more remarked and strong in this one, (for example the beginning is way more clear than the revisioned version, in which he speeds up the tempo for no reason whatsoever) and a lot of the parts he cuts are beautiful and worth to be left in the piece. Come on guys, "easier" doesn't always mean "worse"...
In both the original and revised versions of this concerto, the tempo marking is simply “vivace”. Vivace is faster than allegro and thus is generally understood to be approximately 150-170bpm. Rachmaninoff’s recording of the revised version of this concerto is about that speed (to be specific, the orchestra about at 140bpm and the piano reaches about 150bpm in the octaves). As I pointed out, the tempo marking is unchanged in the revision. In this recording, the piece starting at half the marked speed is an interpretative decision but is not what Rachmaninoff has written down. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because as you pointed out, the melody is indeed far more remarked at a slower tempo, but the sacrifice made is the breathless energy of a conventional interpretation. If you haven’t heard it before, I highly recommend you listen to Rachmaninoff’s own recording of this concerto.
@@tomcarterpianist For some reasons I didn't know there was his version on youtube, so thank you for your comment. I admit that the version I listened was way worse than Rachmaninoff's recording, but I still can't get over the fact he changed some really great parts of the older version and made them worse. As you pointed out, the tempo is slowered in this interpretation, but in my opinion it's better. However that wasn't the only one problem, so I guess you're right, but I still prefer this older version for the reasons I wrote before.
@@danibv1291 That's quite reasonable! In my comment, I only wanted to point out the changed starting speed being an interpretive, rather than originally composed, decision. If you prefer it like that, that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. Rachmaninoff famously thought Horowitz the best performer of his music and Horowitz had his own interpretative decisions in the 3rd concerto recordings, for example, that diverge from Rachmaninoff's own recording. It's all a matter of taste!
What a great achievement for an 18 year old student! I'm looking forward to seeing it performed live at the BBC Proms with Gindin this year, thank you for posting it.
The composition is phenomenal in this early draft, and the 1917-there's no doubting his skill in that regard. Some of his early works are my favourites. But it's still a little reassuring to know that Rachmaninoff probably couldn't play the 1917 version at that age. Some of the technique in the revised version is ridiculously difficult.
So strange listen to the original conception that Rachmaninov thought at that moment.....he did the right thing rewriting the Concerto....at the 1891 version, we listen Tchaikovsky and Rubinstein influences. At the 1917 version, we listen to Rachmaninov himself 😊
There are some really beautiful french horn lines in the 2nd movement that didn't make it in the 1917 version (three note chromatic fall in the piano solo section, subtle but really beautiful to my ears, that got transferred to piano LH; and end of 2nd movement accompanied by beautiful chanting high piano chords, G major D major G minor D major, a moment which I rather liked)
The 1917 version was the best but for only 18 years old its not bad. I think this version was at the point were he was not fully develop in music. The harmonis gives more sens in the 1917 version. But its still incredeble.
If Rachmaninoff wrote the 1917 version in 1891. He would've been perhaps one of the greatest young composers ever lived. I doubt any of the composers that we know have reached that level of maturity in composition and musical writing at the age of so.
Je n'avais jamais écouté cette première version, avant la révision, et même si je préfère celle plus tardive, cela reste du génie et chapeau bas à Rachmaninov ❤
27:43 - In the light of his later revision, I always laugh how inappropriate this oddly Lisztian transition is, and how Rachmaninov didn't really bother as an 18-year old to compose a proper fast coda, just state the incipit of the secondary theme three times with some chords thrown in... :D Who am I kidding though, it's still lightyears ahead whatever us mere mortals could compose. You might call me out saying that I have gauche taste, but I actually prefer the syncopated piano texture at 21:19 over the later version. Maybe Rach thought that it's pianistically a little awkward in regards to the jumps but it gives the music a bouncy, playful character contrasting the legato right hand. Apart from that, he withdrew this version for a reason... Every time I listen to this it just makes me want to put on the revised one. Some of my favourite parts of the 1917 version is completely missing from this one such as the piu commodo part of the cadenza.
The coda really does crack me up. I can't stop my lips from twitching every time I hear it lol. The capriciousness and octaves do indeed remind of Liszt's show pieces (Hungarian Rhapsody 2? Concerto 1?). Like it's so energetic, youthful and immature that it makes you smile both from the absurd EPICNESS™ and from the sincerity of the joy. If I were a concert pianist, I would love to perform this version in like an outdoor informal venue with like small fireworks and streamers popping at the very end.
A lot of the final movement is very Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody it seems. For this piece I’d say Rachmaninov took inspiration from Grieg (it’s specifically said that he modelled the first movement at least after Grieg’s concerto), Tchaikovsky and Liszt.
I personally love this original one way more than the "revised" version. It may doesn't sound like the matured Rachmaninoff style and with better orchestra and pianism, but its simplicity builds up a unique romance that doesn't exist in the "revised" version. Especially the end of all 3 movements are all more beautiful than the revised version. I just love it. He overdone with the revision and the beauty was lost. It's a huge pity that people don't even get to know this original version, only putting the attention on it's "immaturity", whining "too Tchaikovsky" and see the "revised" one as standard. Revised doesn't necessarily means better.
I can hear certain parts of Rimsky Korsakov, Tchaikovsky etc. in this. I personally think some ideas here should've been kept in the revised edition, but the latter is definitely better written
Anyone else notice the D# played (correctly in my view) when a D-natural is printed at 15:33? It's printed a D# in the 1919 version so it makes sense to play it in the 1891 version I guess!?
Concertos are difficult - even Rachmaninov had to redo two of them, the other being no. 4. I wonder how much he played this early version in the 25 or so years before the revised version? He certainly found the right shape for the marvelous raw material of his teenage effort. P.S. I looked up more of the history - this version was published in 1893. So it might be somewhat revised from the version SR originally wrote.
The 1891 version is beautiful and should have remained that way without any changes but at least it should have maintained the majestic ending of the third movement. In fact, in the second version the endings of the first and second movements seem rushed. I absolutely prefer this version and am surprised that it is snubbed by the majority of pianists and conductors.
@@pineapple7024 I completely agree! I just have such respect for Rachmaninoff as a composer, that it is sad that he had to revise it in the first place.
@@santiagocordero2846 Really? I thought the old one imitated its influences too openly. I think the sections that were cut only made it to paper because Rachmaninoff couldn’t effectively use his own voice yet, so the references to Grieg’s concerto almost felt obligatory
I can’t get over how Tchaikovsky this sounds lol. Especially the ugly orchestral transitions like at 4:08 (no offence Tchaik). Thank god Rach found the time to revise it or this concerto would be even less played in the light of his later works. With the 1917 version, the 1st concerto became just as good as the others (I actually prefer it over n°2)
The original 1891 version of this concerto sounds like Rachmaninoff on Prozac, whereas the 1917 version sounds like an emo about to cut their wrists - I much prefer the 1917 version, but can't listen to it due to its dark powers
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I think his Revision really made sense. I mean he kept the best bits and just deleted most of the unwieldy transitions. And the rest that was left was polished up to get clearer voicing and to keep up with his pianistic Standards. But it‘s still extremely impressive how he came up with all these beautiful melodies and harmonies in his teenage years. He was really gifted.
I agree with most of his 1917 revisions, but it's still incredible that he composed all this when he was 17 and 18.
One thing I thought was strange was how he completed got rid of the climactic rendition of the main theme of the third movement at 28:24. I always thought it worked perfectly.
@@Joe-oh5ch Yeah, I don't know what possessed him to get rid of that part.
well, it's a bit boring in this version, but I can imagine he could have been able to improve upon that easily in his revision.
@@Joe-oh5ch that theme reminds me of the 2nd subject from 1st mvmt of tchaikovsky's pathetique!
@@samaritan29 what bar?
He rewrote the entire third movement ;)
I had always been completely astonished how a 17 year old composed the 3rd movement (I hadn't known he revised it), but in this version it makes sense.
This is a student work of Rachmaninoff and got full marks from the examiner who said. Young Man. Please enforce.
such musical maturity at 17 reminds me why Rachmaninoff is one of the best
Rachmaninoff was a Titan...for me he was the Greatest Composer of the 20th Century by far...The only other Composer that moves me as much is J.S Bach ....centuries apart...but given that Special Gift ...one that goes beyond all Analysis ....we can only thank them for their legacy and keep their Music in the Ears of Our generation which has Such misplaced Value on Great Talent.
Not a single mark was deducted of this student work by the examiner.The examiner did not know what to say. This is much better than what his teacher Arensky could have written !
another prove that Rachmaninoff was a genius
So thankful for the modulation to E flat major on the third mvnt, that he discovered upon revision!
Oh, I disagree. The lurch to E flat is a clumsy atrocity (to use Chris Osborne's word) which Rakhmaninov substituted for a perfectly good move to D. And one part of this original which I miss in the revision is this theme's recap at 28:24. Without that recap, the E flat major section is out of place --- it doesn't relate to any of the rest of the work, and it isn't even in a related key.
It’s very interesting seeing how much he’s evolved. probably the biggest thing that stood out was that rsolution at 4:09ish
3:54 to 4:10 contains an almost direct quotation of the Grieg piano concerto, on which this work was modelled. I think all of R's revisions were right, although I regret he cut out the jaunty and rather jazzy passage at 26:23 which I absolutely love! Some of the transitions he rightly cut out are pretty awful (e.g. the atrocity at 5:04), but still, a phenomenal effort from someone so young, demonstrating such talent in abundance. It would be fascinating to hear the entries of R's contemporaries in the graduating class; one imagines this work would stand leagues above the rest.
yes, 26:23 is good
26:23 is very "Grieg" (1st movement)....another quote again!
Scriabin was in the same class though.
@@harriethtw It definitely reminds me of the halling dance theme from the final movement of Grieg's piano concerto
3:54 to 4:10 is so similar, I automatically expect to hear Grieg's coda after listening to that section :D
I played Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 1 back at graduation in 1988 and that was the revised version of the original composed in 1891. WOW! Now that I have the recording of the original, I seem to think that it is wonderful if not more dynamic and melancholic. Love Love love xoxoxo
It is surprising that more virtuoso pianists dont play this version, given the quality opf the Cadenza
Based on the comments, I'm surprise I'm the only one who prefers this version of his first piano concerto. I just love the fact it sounds more spontaneous than the revisioned one and with less unnecessary virtuosic parts. The melodies are far more remarked and strong in this one, (for example the beginning is way more clear than the revisioned version, in which he speeds up the tempo for no reason whatsoever) and a lot of the parts he cuts are beautiful and worth to be left in the piece.
Come on guys, "easier" doesn't always mean "worse"...
In both the original and revised versions of this concerto, the tempo marking is simply “vivace”. Vivace is faster than allegro and thus is generally understood to be approximately 150-170bpm. Rachmaninoff’s recording of the revised version of this concerto is about that speed (to be specific, the orchestra about at 140bpm and the piano reaches about 150bpm in the octaves). As I pointed out, the tempo marking is unchanged in the revision. In this recording, the piece starting at half the marked speed is an interpretative decision but is not what Rachmaninoff has written down. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because as you pointed out, the melody is indeed far more remarked at a slower tempo, but the sacrifice made is the breathless energy of a conventional interpretation. If you haven’t heard it before, I highly recommend you listen to Rachmaninoff’s own recording of this concerto.
@@tomcarterpianist For some reasons I didn't know there was his version on youtube, so thank you for your comment. I admit that the version I listened was way worse than Rachmaninoff's recording, but I still can't get over the fact he changed some really great parts of the older version and made them worse. As you pointed out, the tempo is slowered in this interpretation, but in my opinion it's better. However that wasn't the only one problem, so I guess you're right, but I still prefer this older version for the reasons I wrote before.
@@danibv1291 That's quite reasonable! In my comment, I only wanted to point out the changed starting speed being an interpretive, rather than originally composed, decision. If you prefer it like that, that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. Rachmaninoff famously thought Horowitz the best performer of his music and Horowitz had his own interpretative decisions in the 3rd concerto recordings, for example, that diverge from Rachmaninoff's own recording. It's all a matter of taste!
"unnecessary"
What a great achievement for an 18 year old student! I'm looking forward to seeing it performed live at the BBC Proms with Gindin this year, thank you for posting it.
The composition is phenomenal in this early draft, and the 1917-there's no doubting his skill in that regard. Some of his early works are my favourites. But it's still a little reassuring to know that Rachmaninoff probably couldn't play the 1917 version at that age. Some of the technique in the revised version is ridiculously difficult.
Indeed. I think he went away and ingested the entirety of Bach's counterpoint and decided to add it to his compositional style. Fiendish!
Spot on
So strange listen to the original conception that Rachmaninov thought at that moment.....he did the right thing rewriting the Concerto....at the 1891 version, we listen Tchaikovsky and Rubinstein influences. At the 1917 version, we listen to Rachmaninov himself 😊
Yes! 🎯
0:00 1st mvt
14:18 2nd mvt
19:43 3rd mvt
There are some really beautiful french horn lines in the 2nd movement that didn't make it in the 1917 version (three note chromatic fall in the piano solo section, subtle but really beautiful to my ears, that got transferred to piano LH; and end of 2nd movement accompanied by beautiful chanting high piano chords, G major D major G minor D major, a moment which I rather liked)
Excellent observation. I listened again and enjoy it more because you pointed it out. Thx
This version reminds me more of Amy Beach’s Piano Concerto than the revised one does. I think it’s the unabashed passionate late Romanticism
The 1917 version was the best but for only 18 years old its not bad. I think this version was at the point were he was not fully develop in music. The harmonis gives more sens in the 1917 version. But its still incredeble.
Syslak?
If Rachmaninoff wrote the 1917 version in 1891. He would've been perhaps one of the greatest young composers ever lived. I doubt any of the composers that we know have reached that level of maturity in composition and musical writing at the age of so.
Je n'avais jamais écouté cette première version, avant la révision, et même si je préfère celle plus tardive, cela reste du génie et chapeau bas à Rachmaninov ❤
27:43 - In the light of his later revision, I always laugh how inappropriate this oddly Lisztian transition is, and how Rachmaninov didn't really bother as an 18-year old to compose a proper fast coda, just state the incipit of the secondary theme three times with some chords thrown in... :D Who am I kidding though, it's still lightyears ahead whatever us mere mortals could compose. You might call me out saying that I have gauche taste, but I actually prefer the syncopated piano texture at 21:19 over the later version. Maybe Rach thought that it's pianistically a little awkward in regards to the jumps but it gives the music a bouncy, playful character contrasting the legato right hand. Apart from that, he withdrew this version for a reason... Every time I listen to this it just makes me want to put on the revised one. Some of my favourite parts of the 1917 version is completely missing from this one such as the piu commodo part of the cadenza.
The coda really does crack me up. I can't stop my lips from twitching every time I hear it lol. The capriciousness and octaves do indeed remind of Liszt's show pieces (Hungarian Rhapsody 2? Concerto 1?). Like it's so energetic, youthful and immature that it makes you smile both from the absurd EPICNESS™ and from the sincerity of the joy. If I were a concert pianist, I would love to perform this version in like an outdoor informal venue with like small fireworks and streamers popping at the very end.
I found this piano concerto so irresistable.
A lot of the final movement is very Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody it seems. For this piece I’d say Rachmaninov took inspiration from Grieg (it’s specifically said that he modelled the first movement at least after Grieg’s concerto), Tchaikovsky and Liszt.
Ah yes. Good observation.
I personally love this original one way more than the "revised" version.
It may doesn't sound like the matured Rachmaninoff style and with better orchestra and pianism, but its simplicity builds up a unique romance that doesn't exist in the "revised" version. Especially the end of all 3 movements are all more beautiful than the revised version. I just love it. He overdone with the revision and the beauty was lost.
It's a huge pity that people don't even get to know this original version, only putting the attention on it's "immaturity", whining "too Tchaikovsky" and see the "revised" one as standard. Revised doesn't necessarily means better.
i beg to differ
I totally agree
I can hear certain parts of Rimsky Korsakov, Tchaikovsky etc. in this. I personally think some ideas here should've been kept in the revised edition, but the latter is definitely better written
Anyone else notice the D# played (correctly in my view) when a D-natural is printed at 15:33? It's printed a D# in the 1919 version so it makes sense to play it in the 1891 version I guess!?
the beginning of the cadenza is better here. The middle part and the ending are better in the 1917 version
Thank you Viktor!!
Pretty close to the newer version. I can see why he made most revisions, and they were justified
Concertos are difficult - even Rachmaninov had to redo two of them, the other being no. 4. I wonder how much he played this early version in the 25 or so years before the revised version? He certainly found the right shape for the marvelous raw material of his teenage effort. P.S. I looked up more of the history - this version was published in 1893. So it might be somewhat revised from the version SR originally wrote.
This is amazing. Thanks for sharing!
The 1891 version is beautiful and should have remained that way without any changes but at least it should have maintained the majestic ending of the third movement. In fact, in the second version the endings of the first and second movements seem rushed. I absolutely prefer this version and am surprised that it is snubbed by the majority of pianists and conductors.
Now I see why Rachmaninoff had to revise it
Yeah, sadly.
@@Elijah24553
Why sadly? The revision is much better
@@pineapple7024 I completely agree! I just have such respect for Rachmaninoff as a composer, that it is sad that he had to revise it in the first place.
@@pineapple7024i disagree. For me, this original version is better
@@santiagocordero2846
Really? I thought the old one imitated its influences too openly. I think the sections that were cut only made it to paper because Rachmaninoff couldn’t effectively use his own voice yet, so the references to Grieg’s concerto almost felt obligatory
You can totally hear the late romantic period in this. Yet it still sounds modern 20th century.
Some Tchaikovsky fangirling at 4:55
Igualmente me parece hermosa esta versión.
It’s the same concerto but then way less amazing it’s quite interesting to listen to,
You can gear the Grieg in him come out alot more than the revised edition
I cant tell if it is supposed to be this slow or this is just how the orchestra is playing it
yes tempo weird
Imagine the musical training of this time and before --and the actual dictation on paper--will not see this again in our world
Amazing :D
9:25
GNB best part
This is hardly the “vivace” that is marked.
Wooooaaa
i can't believe that rachmaninoff wrote this in 17
At 18 to be exact.He has already surpassed his teacher Arensky in piano techniques and writing.
Rachmagianoff
Último minuto
Do I need copyright permission to use this in a short film?
10:32
Second version is much better
3:38
I can’t get over how Tchaikovsky this sounds lol. Especially the ugly orchestral transitions like at 4:08 (no offence Tchaik). Thank god Rach found the time to revise it or this concerto would be even less played in the light of his later works. With the 1917 version, the 1st concerto became just as good as the others (I actually prefer it over n°2)
The original 1891 version of this concerto sounds like Rachmaninoff on Prozac, whereas the 1917 version sounds like an emo about to cut their wrists - I much prefer the 1917 version, but can't listen to it due to its dark powers
he did well by replacing this tchaikovsky ballet comedy...
Wdym?
Wdym?
10:32