Rach 2 and 3

[mercia]

presumably it's more than just ease of playing that makes a composer pick any given key to write in

doesn't F-sharp major have a certain "colour" ?
don't know what I mean by that, but you probably do

[Pabmusic]

presumably it's more than just ease of playing that makes a composer pick any given key to write in

doesn't F-sharp major have a certain "colour" ?
don't know what I mean by that, but you probably do

Oh yes, I agree. Scriabin was a composer who was genuinely interested in this aspect (as were several of the Russians). One of his later pieces (Prometheus, I think) includes a part for a 'light organ' that projected different colours during the performance. I really don't want to be too categoric about it; I suspect particular keys are chosen for all sorts of reasons, and we really don't know why. But, by choosing F-sharp, they're can't be much doubt that Scriabin created a handicap that the piece didn't perhaps need. It has probably been passed over many times in favour of a less troublesome concerto, just because of its key.

It's just occurred to me that we use A=440 Hz for tuning nowadays, but 440 Hz has only been an international standard for 60 years or so. Scriabin's A would have been a different note, almost certainly sharper by quite a bit.

[mercia]

sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this thread

possibly last question: if, for example, Elgar's Symphony 1 was in A rather that A-flat, would we feel any differently about it, would it sound different, would we notice any difference, would it "matter"

rather vague questions which probably don't have sensible answers

[MrGongGong]

It's just occurred to me that we use A=440 Hz for tuning nowadays, but 440 Hz has only been an international standard for 60 years or so. Scriabin's A would have been a different note, almost certainly sharper by quite a bit.

eeer we don't any more (not sure whether we really did at all .......... ask a harpist !)
even though it's supposedly a "standard" most instruments are made to A=442
and (see previous threads etc etc etc )

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this thread

possibly last question: if, for example, Elgar's Symphony 1 was in A rather that A-flat, would we feel any differently about it, would it sound different, would we notice any difference, would it "matter"

rather vague questions which probably don't have sensible answers

There would probably be an audible difference if this were done in concert (not least if the players were used to playing it in Ab!) but if you burn off a CD of the work onto Audacity and change the pitch (but not the Tempo) up a semitone I don't think many listeners would "suss" what you'd done if you played them the disc. It would be interesting to hear at what interval people began to hear something "wrong": the point where it became clear that the Bass wasn't deep enough and the top too "thin".

Other listeners have keener perceptions of pitch/key alterations: Frank Mumby, a pupil of Nadia Boulanger who taught at Leeds University, had "perfect pitch" (yes, I know: in this instance I mean that he could "identify", for example, a vibration at c 440 bps as being the A above middle C: indeed, used to "tune" players in the middle of rehearsals by singing such). He had to "re-tune" his inner ear to adapt to HIPP when Philip Wilby and others introduced such practices. After an initial period of being perplexed at hearing "Bach's Mass in G# minor", he rather came to enjoy learning "all these different C majors"!

[Pabmusic]

sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this thread

possibly last question: if, for example, Elgar's Symphony 1 was in A rather that A-flat, would we feel any differently about it, would it sound different, would we notice any difference, would it "matter"

rather vague questions which probably don't have sensible answers

I've been out all day, so missed this. The biggest difference we'd hear between A-flat and A would be in the quality of the strings' notes in the first position, because almost all those in A-flat are stopped (ie: the pitch is created by the positioning of the fingers) while three of the strings in A major will be open - important notes, too (A, D and E). The string sound will inevitably be a little brighter and this will be apparent overall. As I said earlier in post 21, I suspect Elgar was deliberately exploiting this feature in using A-flat and D as the two principal keys.

[mercia]

thanks pabmusic. Fascinating subject (in my opinion). perhaps this thread should now return to Rach 2 & 3.

[Barbirollians]

I have to go with two very famous records . Richter's 2 and Argerich's live No 3 - they thrill like no others for me .

I do have a soft spot for Gilels and Lympany in No 3 , the composer's recordings , the early Ashkenazy pairing referred to above, Andsnes fascinating cycle , Zimerman in No 2 , Horowitz's early recording with Coates of No3 etc.

[Parry1912]

I'm very partial to Thibaudet's recordings with Ashkenazy conducting.

[Hornspieler]

This is surprising - as an occasional pianist myself, I have never found F# to be at all easy ( you can't begin the scale with the thumb - unless you are Russian-trained) compared to, say, B major, A major or E major.

So is it the same problem with F# minor? (or G flat major?)

Only joking. As one who is not piano literate (I discovered long ago that I have five thumbs on each hand!) such problems would not have occurred to me.

HS

[rauschwerk]

...you can't begin the scale with the thumb - unless you are Russian-trained...

Perhaps all pianists (once through Grade 8) should follow the example of Liszt, who practised all scales using noth the conventional and C major fingerings (I forget where I read this).

As for the topic of this thread, I must admit that I have gone off Rach 3 completely and perhaps permanently. I still love all his other concertos.

[Mr Pee]

As for the topic of this thread, I must admit that I have gone off Rach 3 completely and perhaps permanently. I still love all his other concertos.

I can't imagine EVER going off Rach 3!!!!

Two fairly recent recordings that do it for me in these concerti are Lief Ove Andsnes with Pappano/BPO/LSO, and Simon Trpceski with the RLPO and Petrenko. Both are outstanding, IMO.

[Barbirollians]

I'm very partial to Thibaudet's recordings with Ashkenazy conducting.

I find that performance very thoughtful and beautiful in parts but rather underpowered. Have not listened to it in ages though so maybe will give it a spin later .

[amateur51]

I have a soft spot for the early EMI-released Russian recording of no.3 by Andrei Gavrilov and (was it?) Fedoseyev. He was such a mercurial pianist but went off the rails a while back. Rumour has it that he may be back on the rails, which can only be a good thing if true. Not so with Pogorelich, sadly

I was quite partial to an André Watts recording of no.3 too which I had on LP but I'm not sure if it was released on CD.