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.
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
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..?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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 !
Starting limited yours playing by you through promoting in worldwide without Fashizum stronger effected now their started 21c. actions like financiay damage in today as much world wide weaken by their damaged plan as in even byUN cautions given.We need protections by own for keeping and good holding art actions for lesser stresses of workes in art world confortable spaces through many higher quality stages with good incomes on artists pure beautiful safty best quality stronger diamonds in lights
Saverio Beccacece Mi piacerebbepoter comprendere meglio il senso di "russo".... Suono "russo"... E via dicendo. Sarebbe cosi gentile da spiegarlo? Grazie.
Почти преклоняюсь перед Плетнёвым, Чайковского никто не играет лучше. Но конкретно эта запись удивляет (как и восторженные комментарии). Неужели никто не слышит совершенно несвойственной Михаилу Васильевичу грязной педали? Особенно в первой части? Не замечает, как в каденции совершенно пропадает тема, "замазанная" техническими фиоритурами? Не обращает внимание на совершенно необоснованно "рваные" темпы? Плетнёв явно был не в форме. Но все в восторге...
I ordered yellow flowers,China hoped yours of all, now I again refuse this with your named piano tune pitchies with this Orchestra this stage with mine rights and status,too.Now china accepted F-powers& their orderings with using their corporating scores by givins corporatings from incomes& costs.USSR with Rusia orUkrina etc refused those for keeping safty artists higher quality stages for keeping safty societies. So holding this your piano& this music& your scors limited your own fames&rights.
I had given this pitches are beautiful& highest safty for highest quality artists with your countries tops & hoppings in brilliants beautiful wonderful safty futuers on forefer. If you compose by you own name by many decorate grand wonderful giant piano of dramatic shining beautiful actives in base& high are with much gryssand without not duties of payments against fashizm euro&Asia&UKkings Fpowers,free from them,&for making pure nothing f-powers society through using safty scores&new yours .
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...)
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.
Amazing concert. They don't produce these nowadays anymore. Mikhail Pletnev is genius !!
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!!!
После Плетнева не хочется никого слушать.Гениальный Музыкант!❤❤❤
Гениальный музыкант большой труженник .Спасибо за прекрасного русского музыканта .
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.
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!
Три гения Чайковский Плетнев и Федосеев .Это уникальная запись музыки.
10:56 to 11:50-ish Pletnev made the piano sang like an opera singer. That was beautiful
This is awesome interpretation of the Piano Concerto no 2!!!
Pletnev is fantastic and leaves everyone else in the shade.
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.
Pletnev is a giant. His interpretation of this concert is glorious.
그의 감성은 예리하면서도 고급스럽습니다
Russian works should be played by Russian artists. They put strong beautiful Russian aroma into the music.
Праздник!!! Брависсимо Чайковскому, Плетневу, дирижеру и окестру! Соло виолончели и скрипки во 2й части-душа поет!!! Браво!
L'orchestrazione di Tchaikovsky è stupenda, inarrivabile.Berliotz al confronto è un dilettante!
My God what virtuosity.
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 !
This concerto is rarely performed because it cannot be played.
Плетнёв&Федоссев&БСО - лучшее и представить нельзя!
Pletnev&Fedoseyev!
Это БСО?
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.
Было бы интересно указать в описании оркестр, дирижёра, и, в качестве опции, зал. А то получается Михаил Плетнёв исполнил всё самостоятельно.
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.
He clearly has seven fingers on each hand! Fabulous.
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.
Это гениальное исполнение! Плетнев величайший музыкант современности! Оркестр великолепен!
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 !?
@@billyfisher1539To me the best Tchaikovsky 2do concert is Zhukov.
The cadenza is great though! Of course his pianism is fantastic!
No doubt about that!
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
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.
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.
Minute 10:53 to 12:15.......this is so great.....unbelieveable
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.
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?
@@송재경-n6i Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra, the time of recording could be 1991.
Astonishing performance by M. Pletnev. Each of his interpretations is immortal.
FABULOUS PUANIST,TSAIKOFSKY ,S MUSIC IS FROM HEAVEN ,THANK YOU,SALUTATION FROM ATHENS.
1악장 소름 돋는다 역시 대작곡가,,,
MA-RA-VI-LLO-SO. En todos los sentidos
What the Name of Celloplayer who Play Solo in the 2d movement?
Phenomenal!!!
Блистательное исполнение. Десятки раз 2-ой концерт слушал, но в исполнении Плетнева -- это фантастика!!!
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….
Wonderful music. Elegant, graceful, touching, fresh, inspiring concerto.... Bravo Tchaikovsky!
This is an incredible performance!!!
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.
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.
A superior concerto to the B flat minor
Neverovatno !!!
Incredibly !!
Incroyablement!
It looks like the conductor slaps the viola player's head at 06:27 😃
Браво Плетнев! Великолепное исполнение! 👏👏👏👏👏🌹🌹
Endowed with incredible music genes are hereditary multi generational and God given gift like the alignment of planets a celestial phenomenon.
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!
Великолепно! Спасибо 🙏! 🇮🇱
brilliant
amazing!!!!!!!!
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…
My favorite part is,,, 10:50
When your piano concerto is more famous for its violin and cello duet part
belle performance , j'aime aussi celle de Emil_Gilels-Maazel
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.
I love this piece.
Bravo!!!!! 👏👏👏💯💖
How does a human get this good?
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
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 .
Holy crap.
Yo dawg , we heard you liked cadenzas, so ---
BEST version ever!!
You wonder why Horowitz didnt play it. This is the kind of manic cadenza he was aces at.
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 !
Sorry..los peques no escribien nunca..Director..Quien ? Orquesta ?..
Starting limited yours playing by you through promoting in worldwide without Fashizum stronger effected now their started 21c. actions like financiay damage in today as much world wide weaken by their damaged plan as in even byUN cautions given.We need protections by own for keeping and good holding art actions for lesser stresses of workes in art world confortable spaces through many higher quality stages with good incomes on artists pure beautiful safty best quality stronger diamonds in lights
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.
Music doesnt get any better than this
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......
Viktor Simon ❤️
Молодой Плетнев - особый жанр. Гений
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Thanks.
Immenso capolavoro. Eseguito in maniera eccelsa.
Did you like this my designed hall with your named tune piano?
Почти преклоняюсь перед Плетнёвым, Чайковского никто не играет лучше.
Но конкретно эта запись удивляет (как и восторженные комментарии). Неужели никто не слышит совершенно несвойственной Михаилу Васильевичу грязной педали? Особенно в первой части? Не замечает, как в каденции совершенно пропадает тема, "замазанная" техническими фиоритурами? Не обращает внимание на совершенно необоснованно "рваные" темпы?
Плетнёв явно был не в форме. Но все в восторге...
Pletnev is the GOaT
Прекрасное исполнение.Удовольствие. С большой энергией и задором! Так надо? Или это только ваша интерпретация?
The cadenza is other-worldly pianism. I love how the future conductor makes an appearance via the LH when it is free.
Perfeito ✨
I ordered yellow flowers,China hoped yours of all, now I again refuse this with your named piano tune pitchies with this Orchestra this stage with mine rights and status,too.Now china accepted F-powers& their orderings with using their corporating scores by givins corporatings from incomes& costs.USSR with Rusia orUkrina etc refused those for keeping safty artists higher quality stages for keeping safty societies.
So holding this your piano& this music& your scors limited your own fames&rights.
I had given this pitches are beautiful& highest safty for highest quality artists with your countries tops & hoppings in brilliants beautiful wonderful safty futuers on forefer. If you compose by you own name by many decorate grand wonderful giant piano of dramatic shining beautiful actives in base& high are with much gryssand without not duties of payments against fashizm euro&Asia&UKkings Fpowers,free from them,&for making pure nothing f-powers society through using safty scores&new yours .
Под Баха можно всплакнуть о своём, под Чайковского нужно совершать подвиг
Der zweite Satz ist kitschig und sentimental bis zum geht nicht mehr, könnte glatt von Rieu stammen!
Гилельс выше на три головы по звучанию с Мазелем, хотя и запись плохая .
아름다운 연주입니다. 플레트네프처럼 피아니스트들이 바이올린 솔로 뺏어가지 않으면 좋겠네요. :)
Minchia! Come corre che neanche Lang Lang.😮
I’m model and Chopin not playing piano.
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.
How fast can he play ?👴
Без купюр! Вторая редакция! Великолепно! Чайковский верно согласился с некоторыми сокращениями!
Maestro Pletnev😍😍😍😍😍👏👏👏👏👏👌👌👌👌👌
Che beautifull musica
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.