Since there don't seem to be any new recordings of them coming out soon, I think this is the appropriate wing of the forum to discuss them. All 4 have been recorded, plus the early Concertino, Op. 33. As Eric has mentioned, the final work is extremely compact, and I find its string-heavy orchestration a bit lackadaisical, certainly less deft than that of the roughly contemporary flute concerto. The first PC, as has been pointed out, has been recorded no less than 3 times to my knowledge (Robbins, Ponti, Hellwig). The second has two recordings (Robbins, Hellwig), and Hellwig alone has recorded the other two full-scale concertos on a box set of all 4 from cpo. There are one or two recordings of the Concertino (or is it Konzertstück?), I forget exactly how many. I wanted to pick one up, but now I can't remember the label. Some on this forum have previously expressed a dislike for these works, but to me they exemplify the best of high Romanticism, especially the criminally neglected 3rd, which I consider the best of the lot, as does Alan. Feedback, anyone?
Quote from: JimL on Sunday 14 November 2010, 16:02
There are one or two recordings of the Concertino (or is it Konzertstück?), I forget exactly how many. I wanted to pick one up, but now I can't remember the label.
I have this work and am listening to it right now, thanks to your post. Must've been years since I last heard it. The CD is from the label EBS (sub of Bayer) and the year 2005, and on the cover it says 'premiere recording of op.33' - the fast-slow-fast concert piece. As I'm writing, I'm starting to remember why I hardly ever listen to this piece - it really lacks a good tune, and the orchestra isn't particularly subtle. That is different with the CPO piano concertos, which are next on today's playlist!
Perhaps the Konzertstück can be done a greater favor, although I know of no other recordings. Anyway, time for the 3rd concerto, now...
I am generally more comfortable with shorter works, so I rather like the Konzertstuck. Perhaps as said it could do with a really good tune and the ideas are rather fragmented, but pleasant enough, fluid, and would be a good introductory piece for students before tackling some of the more immense romantic concertos.
This is mechanically not a huge task and after a few hours this afternoon I reckon I could give it a bash in a few weeks.
A nice Mendelssohnian youthful work written a rather considerable 53 years before the 4th.
Thal
After reading your posts, I had a look at Amazon and found a two CD recording of Reinecke's PCs (Francis, Modersohn and Nordwestdeutsche). So far, my only Reinecke CDs are the King Manfred Suite and Symphony No. 1, both which I find quite boring; however, the bit that I could hear of the PCs on (another) Amazon recording sounds encouraging, so I decided to give it a go.
Regards
Gerhard
That's the Hellwig performance, Gerhard. I think the conducting chores were divided between Alun Francis and Modersohn. I'll have to check, because the name Modersohn doesn't ring a bell in association with that CD set.
Modersohn is the painter whose picture features on the front of the cpo box of the four PCs!
PC3 in particular is mature Reinecke - and considerably more ambitious in scope and scale than pieces like his 1st Symphony. The Violin Concerto and Symphonies 2 and 3 would also give a much fuller picture of the composer.
I still can't figure out why the 1st Symphony gets so much attention when Hakon Jarl or the 3rd would have made a much better coupling with the VC. The fact that I already had the 1st Symphony on Naxos is the only reason I didn't get the CD but obtained the VC through other means.
The cpo box with the 4 PCs (1994) is one of the first CDs with unsung music I've bought. My absolute favourite is the 1st, but I think his 3rd is the best of the quartet.
It was in 1975 that I was in Indonesia and I went for some time to Papua (the former Irian Barat, the Indonesian part of New Guinea). Believe it or not, on the classical music KLM inflight channel I could listen to Reinecke's PC 1 in a wonderful performance (not Hellwig of course, but who could that have been in those years?). Every time I listen to Reinecke's PC 1 I must think of my journey to Papua.
The only PC I'm not so very enthusiastic about is the 4th. I cannot explain why. But then, Reinecke wrote a most delightful VC (and I love his 1st Symphony as well).
I'm not sure but I suspect you heard the Gerald Robbins cover on Genesis. I'm not sure when the Ponti LP came out, but I already had the Robbins (accompanied, IIRC by the Monte Carlo Opera Orchestra conducted by the late and much lamented Edouard van Remoortel - another champion of the unsung). The Ponti, on Vox Candied (again IIRC) was coupled with the D'Albert 2. I forget the orchestra and conductor (was it Kapp and the Westphalians?)
Just to report that I have now received my four Reinecke PC set. My first superficial listening left me a bit disappointed. To me, Reinecke sounds a lot like Beethoven, whom I don't like. I'll give it another try; if it still doesn't gel, I'll move it to my give-away shelf, which is regularly inspected by visitors. Maybe a Beethoven-lover will snap up this one...
Well, PC3 isn't really like Beethoven. More like Schumann with the expansiveness of Brahms. Do give this PC in particular a more careful listen!
Reinecke's piano writing is unthinkable without Mendelssohn and Chopin, and is quite un-Beethovenlike. Listen more carefully to the opening of PC 2, for example. Parts of PC 3 even suggest Brahms, particularly when the piano takes up a variant of the principal subject in the first movement shortly after the big tutti (which is recapitulated in the reprise) and the middle section of the slow movement. Beethoven also could never have penned the 2nd subject in the first movement of PC 2. He is far more reminiscent of Schumann than Beethoven. I'm with you there, Alan.
Quote from: JimL on Saturday 04 December 2010, 00:03
Reinecke's piano writing is unthinkable without Mendelssohn and Chopin, and is quite un-Beethovenlike. Listen more carefully to the opening of PC 2, for example. Parts of PC 3 even suggest Brahms, particularly when the piano takes up a variant of the principal subject in the first movement shortly after the big tutti (which is recapitulated in the reprise) and the middle section of the slow movement. Beethoven also could never have penned the 2nd subject in the first movement of PC 2. He is far more reminiscent of Schumann than Beethoven. I'm with you there, Alan.
It's interesting to note that when the 3rd piano concerto was premiered (1887) his contemporaries considered it "the most important concerto of its time". Brahms's Piano concerto had yet to make its mark at the time. As for the wonderful second, I believe it to have been a failure then!!!!!
I believe that it was 1877, FB. Brahms' 1st hadn't been fully accepted yet, and his 2nd was still 6 years in the future. And yes, Reinecke's 2nd PC wasn't "brilliant" enough, so he never published it. Sounds plenty brilliant to me though. BTW, it was chronologically his 1st. His actually numbered 1st (the F# minor) was one of his most popular works.
Quote from: JimL on Saturday 04 December 2010, 13:37
I believe that it was 1877, FB. Brahms' 1st hadn't been fully accepted yet, and his 2nd was still 6 years in the future. And yes, Reinecke's 2nd PC wasn't "brilliant" enough, so he never published it. Sounds plenty brilliant to me though. BTW, it was chronologically his 1st. His actually numbered 1st (the F# minor) was one of his most popular works.
1877 from http://www.carl-reinecke.de/opus/opus141-150.html (http://www.carl-reinecke.de/opus/opus141-150.html), yes. The 2nd concerto was published, in 2-piano reduction, as was not uncommon at the time (think of the Huber concertos 2 and 4) (see http://www.carl-reinecke.de/opus/opus111-120.html (http://www.carl-reinecke.de/opus/opus111-120.html))- or do I misunderstand?
I'm just going from memory, Eric. From what I can recall of the liner notes of the cpo, the writer said "unpublished". However, he could have been referring only to the orchestral score.
Quote from: JimL on Saturday 04 December 2010, 15:27
I'm just going from memory, Eric. From what I can recall of the liner notes of the cpo, the writer said "unpublished". However, he could have been referring only to the orchestral score.
I believe the orchestral score and parts remain in manuscript but I may be mistaken. Kistner did however publish a reduction around 1873, as confirmed(?) additionally by Worldcat (so far as Worldcat confirms anything - ultimately one wants to go deeper, of course.)
See http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No.2,_Op.120_%28Reinecke,_Carl%29 (http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No.2,_Op.120_%28Reinecke,_Carl%29) for the 2-piano reduction (104 pages) in PDF form. No one has yet uploaded or typeset the manuscript full score or parts (besides the piano solo part which was published separately around the same time as the reduction, I believe; Danish Union library does have that) to the same site or published them elsewhere to my knowledge.
hi,
after an accurate reading of all the posts on reinecke's PC, i would like to suggest an argument.
Apart the strong relationship between the beginnings of Reinecke's PC3 and Beethoven PC4, what do you think about the tonal relationship in the 3rd movement? the starting on the 4th grade of the theme, exactly as in Beethoven PC4th?
I'm interested inreading your opinion and excuse me for my bad english
Personally, as a remake of Beethoven PC4th...I prefer Brull PC2nd.
Andrea
I think that Reinecke's are amongst the most pleasurable piano concertos ever written.
In my previous life I only listened to Schumann, Chopin and Mendelssohn piano concertos, now I can't imagine my life without the Hyperion Romantic Piano Concertos and other unsung concertos. My favourites are Schellendorf's, Stavenhagen's, Rheinberger's.
Quote from: reineckeforever on Monday 11 July 2011, 17:59
hi,
after an accurate reading of all the posts on reinecke's PC, i would like to suggest an argument.
Apart the strong relationship between the beginnings of Reinecke's PC3 and Beethoven PC4, what do you think about the tonal relationship in the 3rd movement? the starting on the 4th grade of the theme, exactly as in Beethoven PC4th?
I'm interested inreading your opinion and excuse me for my bad english
Personally, as a remake of Beethoven PC4th...I prefer Brull PC2nd.
Andrea
Very astute of you to note the tonal relationships to Beethoven's 4th PC. Myself, I find the relationship between the openings of Brull's 2nd and Beethoven's 4th to be somewhat stronger (with maybe a little reference to the Beethoven VC as well?) However, when it comes to finales there is a strong affinity between Reinecke 3 and Beethoven 4. The beginning of the principle theme in the sub-dominant is a noteworthy similarity. However, Reinecke uses the tonic of the piece as a dominant preparation for the theme, and extends the resolution to the actual tonic of the piece all the way to the first tutti, whereas Beethoven's theme simply starts on the subdominant and winds up resolving on the tonic pretty quickly.
Yes JimL...the relationship between the concertos is strong but not complete....for me it is a great pleasure talking about this music. I live in Sassari, North Sardinia...in 1981, for my degree exam in Piano, i played Reicneke's PC 1(listened on Rai3 in the Robbins' version and founded in the State library of Munchen).
Nobody among the board of examiners knew it....
About "remake" of Piano Concertos....can you think we can open a forum?
BR, Andrea
hi...again about Reinecke's PC.
I think that there is a strong relationship between the Coda of the first movement of PC 1(after the cadenza) and the same part of Schumann PC...faster tempo...use of neapoletan sixth harmony...and the last 4 chords..(I love the anticipation by the piano of the last f sharp....)
Again, in the second PC, 2nd movement,the dialogue between Piano and orchestra remembers second movement of schumann, in a expanded form...and what say about 2nd idea in e minor with cellos?...in Schumann in c major..!! The marvellous 3rd movement of reinecke 2nd hasn't strong relationship with schumann's PC...but there is something of familiar in the incipit of 2nd idea....only the incipt...in 3/2 tempo as in schumann....and the coda...c sharp minor instead of d---a major of schumann coda sounds very similar to schumann coda, in its beauty and originality
what do you think about?
bye, andrea