Rachmaninoff - 1st Piano Concerto: 1891 version - sheet music
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 янв 2018
- Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873 - 1943) - Piano Concerto No. 1 in F-sharp Minor, op. 1. Composed in 1891. Performed by Alexander Ghindin (piano) and Helsinki Philharmonic orchestra conducted by Vladimir Ashkenasy. With the 2 pianos score of the Concerto. Rachmaninoff revised the Concerto in 1917, original version is performed and recorded very rarely. Ghindin's recording is the only recording of this version.
I. Vivace - Moderato - 00:06
II. Andante cantabile - 14:18
III. Allegro scherzando - 19:42
Сергей Рахманинов (1873 - 1943) - Концерт для фортепиано с оркестром №1 фа-диез минор, соч. 1. Сочинен в 1891 году. Исполняют Александр Гиндин (фортепиано) и Хельсинкский филармонический оркестр под управлением Владимира Ашкенази. С нотами произведения. Рахманинов сделал вторую редакцию концерта в 1917 году, после этого оригинальная версия исполняется и записывается крайне редко. Запись Гиндина - пожалуй, единственная запись этой версии. 
Видеоклипы
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?
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
He rewrote the entire third movement ;)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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!
It’s very interesting seeing how much he’s evolved. probably the biggest thing that stood out was that rsolution at 4:09ish
0:00 1st mvt
14:18 2nd mvt
19:43 3rd mvt
This is amazing. Thanks for sharing!
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"
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.
We must not forget other Titans such as Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin and Schumann. They all possess the same gift and did something different with it. Beethoven used his to produce long, healthy sequences which can last many bars without changing, while still gaining our attention. He did this through transposition but also steady rhythmic beats and forward moving phrases. Bach demonstrates incredible musical craftsmanship, while showing a wide range of emotions through their cadences and dialogues. Mozart, to put it simply, was a speaker of music. He knew the language, and through his formulas conveyed humour, sadness, joy, even pain. Haydn was very similar, but experimented with more witty strains of humour. Schumann was a master of vertical sequences, which he used to represent many different concepts. Chopin was very different; showing the unity of multiple voices travelling through different paths, but somehow reaching the same conclusion. Liszt again was different, introducing the concept of producing atmospheres through music. Some of them were for show, but some others were deep, dark and depressing. And of course Rachmaninoff learned from them all, which can be seen from his piano concerto no.3, where he starts by incorporating an almost Bachian chord progression, after which moving to a second theme demonstrating Chopin's unique skills in counterpoint. After this, the beginning theme is repeated, leading to a sequence showing Beethoven's strength in the large climax which eventually leads into an A minor section similar to the conservative brilliance of Brahms, leading to an explosive moment. Both Cadenzas show both virtuosic and atmospheric elements of Liszt, before eventually returning to the beginning theme, ending in a quiet whisper.
Sorry for the lengthy comment, but from these examples we can see how this language developed. Such composers will never be seen again, but will always be known for their part to play in establishing this language.
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 😊
Igualmente me parece hermosa esta versión.
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 ❤
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
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.
Thank you Viktor!!
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
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.
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
I found this piano concerto so irresistable.
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
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 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
the beginning of the cadenza is better here. The middle part and the ending are better in the 1917 version
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!?
Amazing :D
It’s the same concerto but then way less amazing it’s quite interesting to listen to,
Pretty close to the newer version. I can see why he made most revisions, and they were justified
9:25
GNB best part
Imagine the musical training of this time and before --and the actual dictation on paper--will not see this again in our world
Wooooaaa
I cant tell if it is supposed to be this slow or this is just how the orchestra is playing it
yes tempo weird
This is hardly the “vivace” that is marked.
10:32
Some Tchaikovsky fangirling at 4:55
Do I need copyright permission to use this in a short film?
3:38
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.
@@canman5060 that's insane hahha
Second version is much better
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