Music Discussion thread

[Froge]

That's a little unfair isn't it? It's a concerto - it's almost guaranteed to "show off" every aspect of the piano. And I happen to like Liszt. I'm not sure how you can say this is all over the place and yet worship Chopin, unless you mean to say it is simply bad piano writing - in which case I disagree. Also, compared to Liszt I think it's quite economic in its techniques actually, Rimsky-Korsakov uses little to achieve a lot. I don't agree with your diagnosis that it "spams" arpeggios and octave slides at all. Overall I think the piano part is quite melodious and a high emphasis is placed on creating unique textures by blending the piano into the orchestra.

My opinion derives from a lot of personal experience. Using a lot of arpeggios and notes descending swiftly across octaves is a beginner's technique, because that is how I've composed before, and the results aren't spectacular at all (though of course, Korsakov's compositional skills are still light years ahead of mine). Comparatively speaking, Korsakov uses more arpeggio slides than any other concerto I've ever seen. It's not bad piano writing at all, it's just not as interesting for the pianist as if s / he played a Liszt, Brahms, or Chopin concerto. And yes, I mentioned specifically "for the pianist." I don't have any experience composing, arranging, or studying music for the orchestra. My judgment of the orchestra in this concerto is based on how well I felt it supplemented the piano. I have nothing to say on its musical technique or depth.

By the way, Chopin's concertos are not "all over the place" at all. I've studied and can perform the first movement of his concerto in E minor. It's filled with intricacies devoted mainly to the the pianist (not the orchestra, as Chopin has been criticized for boring orchestration) and which I did not find in Korsakov's piece. There's no doubt that if I actually went and learned how to play Korsakov's concerto I would be able to find similar intricacies in it, but the same could be said of many, many other compositions. Therefore, the only criteria I can use to decide if a piece of music is worth analyzing is whether or not I go "WOWZA" on my first hearing.

Why does it remind you of modern soundtracks (apart from that one woodwind part that you do hear in film scores occasionally, or something similar in any case)? And why is it unsuitable to compare to other Romantic works, apart from it being short? Finally, what is so unspectacular about the piano? I can only speak for myself here, but I find the concerto absolutely riveting with just the right amount of balance between everything, whereas I sometimes do get bored listening to say a Beethoven concerto.

Well, to be honest, I can't really say why I think the piece feels "modern" and unsuited to comparison with the romantic era unless I go and listen to the piece a couple times more. I'm going to call that comment off and say it's just intuition.

As for what is so unspectacular about the piano, all I can really say is that there's nothing in it that caught my eye. From a technical perspective, I didn't really find anything unique, like chromaticism or counterpoint (once again, comparatively speaking - there may have been chromaticism in there, it just didn't stand out to me as much as other romantic composers' uses of it would). From a musical perspective, I'd agree with you that the concerto does not deserve its current criticism. It's not bad, but I don't find it to be awesome either.