Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: YEAH!. . . YUJA! posted by Chris from Lafayette on June 16, 2012 at 18:20:23
Row N, on the right side of Davies. Where I sat (and Davies is variable in this way) the orchestral sound was solid and deep, but I didn't think that Yuja's sound was very big. Fluent, but not that big. I was in the back of the hall for her encore, and that actually carried better, so it might have been my seat location.
I was actually there for the performance of Sibelius' 3rd...turns out it was only the third time that the SFS has programmed it, and the first since the early 90s under Blomstedt. It was a terrific performance, although I thought MTT took a longer than usual ritard at the end (here, the symphony is over now). Nice to hear this piece - Sibelius was a great composer.
I have to say that piano concertos in general are not my cup of tea.....many of them, and the Rach 3rd is one, come across as a piano solo with orchestral accompaniment.....to me, boring compared to an actual symphony. I have come to the point where I actively loathe Tchaikovsky #1.
"I have to say that piano concertos in general are not my cup of tea.....many of them, and the Rach 3rd is one, come across as a piano solo with orchestral accompaniment.....to me, boring compared to an actual symphony. "
Try Brahms's piano concertos. The piano here seems to me to be more integrated into the orchestra parts; more of a dialogue than piano vs. orchestra.
Would you agree Chris from L. ?
I love the Sibelius 3rd. Have yet to hear it live.
Does that make them better? Could be a factor, but for me, it's not a decisive factor. I think the Brahms Second Piano Concerto is among the top five piano concertos ever writen, but the very top for me is still the Rachmaninoff Third.
Also, one other thing to consider: I've never heard the Reger Piano Concerto, but I suspect that, like the Brahms concertos, it also has a more integrated texture than most other concertos do. As I say, textural integration is only one factor among many in the success and appeal of a given concerto - at least, IMHO. ;-)
That's exactly what I said to my wife when that performance ended. Funny!
Re piano concertos, I can understand your reaction to the Tchaikovsky more than I can to the Rachmaninoff. As a piano accompanist, I've played the orchestra part to both concertos on a second piano a number of times, and for me, the Rachmaninoff has a much more interesting orchestra part than the Tchaikovsky does. I don't deny that parts of both concertos are indeed "piano solo with orchestral accompaniment" - that's just the nature of a concerto (unless you want to go back to the Bach Concertos!), although it's true of some more than others. You must really detest the Chopin concertos! ;-)
Yeah, I have never really found much value in the Chopin concertos, although I love his music. I agree that the Rach 3 is ahead of the Tchaikovsky 1 as far as orchestral interest. There are concertos I really like - I am actually a fan of the Grieg and the Liszt 1, believe it or not, and of course Beethoven and Brahms.....and I think there is more orchestral interest in even Mozart...but still, if I want to listen to Beethoven or Brahms piano music I am much more likely to listen to solo piano.
Violin concertos strike me as rising much more naturally from the orchestral fabric. Having said that, the perfect concerto is "Harold in Italy"........
It was cute....and a nice light contrast to the Rach 3....but there is something about watching a pianist do an encore while the rest of the orchestra sits and listens that feels objectionable. At least, to me.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: