Ten (unsung) Romantic Piano Concertos to hear before you die

[bulleid_pacific]

.... with apologies to a well known book series - unfortunately I don't know a thousand romantic piano concertos.... 

My list in no special order:

Medtner 2
Stenhammar 1
Alnaes
Röntgen 2
de Castillon
Goetz 2 (the B flat one...)
Raff
Reinecke 3
Scharwenka 4
Hahn

Couldn't bring myself to add any Rubinsteins for fear of being flamed 

I'm no expert really - as a trombone player I seldom hear what the pianist is doing anyway!

Feel free to add and/or subtract!

[Alan Howe]

As I've said before, list-making is pretty pointless. So, let's have reasons as well as suggestions, otherwise this thread will go the way of all flesh, as it were...

[Mark Thomas]

Despite his shortcomings, there's no risk of being flamed when mentioning Rubinstein as far as I'm concerned, and to prove it I'll add my nomination to the list: Rubinstein's Fifth Piano Concerto.

This is a big, broadly conceived work with a first movement whose craggy grandeur always reminds me of the corresponding movement of Brahms' First Piano Concerto. Rubinstein's piano writing is jaw-droppingly virtuosic, but never empty. Unlike some of his other works, he keeps the listener of the edge of his seat for the whole span of this lengthy movement and, whist I'm not comparing the two works, it's easy to see why Tchaikovsky was so influenced by this piece when writing his own B flat concerto. The other two movements aren't quite up to its standard, but are still amongst the best of Rubinstein's compositions, in my opinion. The slow movement is lyrical without ever being merely pretty and the finale is soberly joyful, if that makes sense. It's a noble, serious work, and I think it the best of his pieces for piano and orchestra, despite the preference which most people seem to have for No.4.

[bulleid_pacific]

Alan - quite right too.  Without detailing each work, the stand-out feature which all of these share (for me) is at least one drop-dead gorgeous melody.  In several cases the composer lets us have several in the same work - Stenhammar 1 comes to mind (and by the way, there never seems to be a massive amount of support for him here apart from the undeniably great second symphony.  Maybe I've read the wrong posts.)  In addition, they are all harmonised in many places in what I call the 'goose bump' / 'shiver down the spine' way.  Being an adequate trombone player but not having studied music theory very far, I don't know how to explain that very well, except that the greatest pleasure I find in romantic music is usually not the melodic invention or the development of the themes, but rather certain specific chord progressions which I recognise like old friends - that's when the spine-tingle factor kicks in.  [off topic - another thing which does it is the sudden appearance of ad lib 32' organ pedals a la Elgar 2 or Enigma  ]  You may discern therefore that I incline more to the late romantic than the early, and I guess only Reinecke 3 and Raff in my list are firmly mid-romantic.  No Moscheles et al!  Raff's is by no means his best work IMHO but given that I came here from reading the old Raff forum and that 'Im Walde' was what kick-started my journey, I owed it to him!

So perhaps my list should have been qualified with a requirement for a great tune and / or inventive and exciting harmony.

[jerfilm]

I'll take a flaming too.   Rubinstein 4 for me.  Along with Scharwenka 3 and of course, the Moszkowski.  Oooops, almost forgot von Sauer's 1.   There are others of course.  But these come to mind.  And for the same reasons listed above - lovely melodies and lovely orchestrations....... 

J

[violinconcerto]

Just out of my curiosity: Did anyone ever take a piece from such lists as a suggestion and really listened to it? I love those lists as well (for violin concertos of course) and mentioned a few in other forums some years ago. But I always had the impression that it just ends in name-dropping and self-portraying (me included naturally).

No offense intended, just asking.
Tobias

[thalbergmad]

I cannot imagine life without the Bortkiewicz 1. It is full of instantly memorable melodies, tons of bravura pianism, lush orchestration and each movement is a masterpiece, albeit perhaps the 1st movement is so special that the other two cannot keep up the genius. Why it is not part of the standard concerto repertoire is a mystery to me.

It would be pointless me naming another 9, since my list would change almost on a daily basis. After listening to the Stavenhagen Op.4 over the weekend, I immediately proclaimed it superior to either of the Brahms, but it would gradually move down my list of 10 as I revisit other works. The Bortkiewicz is the only concerto that is firmly rooted to my personal No.1 and has been there ever since I first heard it.

I have been advised that I might change my mind if the Nikisch ever makes it to disk.

Concertingly.

Thal

[FBerwald]

I would say that Scharwenka's 4th is my favorite. Every time I listen to it I am amazed by the virtuosity, grandeur and utter beauty of this Giant! I find it baffling that it's not in the concert halls. From the Majestic 1st movement to the brilliant Tarantella finale, this concerto would bring down the house.

PS: @thalbergmad. Are you talking about Arthur Nikisch? Did he compose?

[thalbergmad]

Sorry, I could have been more clear. I was referring to Mitja who was Arthur's son.

Thal

[mjkFendrich]

...
I have been advised that I might change my mind if the Nikisch ever makes it to disk.
...
Thal

What about the following link?

http://www.sedina.de/noten/mitjanikisch/mitjanikischklavierkonzertsolisthshelley.html

[thalbergmad]

Thank you so much for that, I did not think it had been recorded.

The clip sounds enchanting.

Thal

[Alan Howe]

Just out of my curiosity: Did anyone ever take a piece from such lists as a suggestion and really listened to it?

Unless a suggestion is accompanied by reasons, I'm not interested. I like to hear why people favour a particular piece of music - then I'll take them seriously and give their suggestions a listen...

[violinconcerto]

OK, I understand that, but my experience is that my musical taste seems to be not fitting with most other people (which actually isn't very much surprising, because there's no accounting for taste). I read people describe awfully lame works as a firework of music, so how much could one get on the impression and words of someone else? I even found that works described as "sounds similar to XY" does not sound similar to XY in my ears in most cases. To say it cynical: Why taking care of the words by others?

[Alan Howe]

Well, an opinion is at least a starting-point, if no more than that; as you say, one often finds that someone else's view of a piece is different (hardly surprising), even down to the matter of it apparently sounding like someone else's music (often very surprising - but then I find supposedly knowledgeable critics likening, say, Draeseke to Brahms, which really is very silly indeed, so there's ultimately no accounting for 'cloth ears', as we say in English.)

However, sometimes an informed opinion can challenge one's own prejudices and correct one's errors. For example. I'm just revisiting Stavenhagen Op.4: I don't think it's better than Brahms, but it's a lot better than I remember - if I remember it all. In fact it's a lovely romantic romp of a piece!

[Gauk]

Presumably there is another list of ten concertos to hear after you die? Maybe lost works that exist only in Heaven?

More seriously, I would advocate Medtner 3 over Medtner 2. Reason: this is a wonderful example of a concerto that puts logical working out of material above pyrotechnic display and histrionic gestures. Starting with that wonderful theme that opens the first movement; wonderful for both its beauty and its musical potential. Medtner 3 I would rate as equal to the best of Rachmaninov.