Yes....the whole section starting around 28:00......Astounding......BRAVO from Mexico City!

그의 감성은 예리하면서도 고급스럽습니다

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.

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 !

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 !?

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.

Это БСО?

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….

Steinwaygrande because it's 42 minutes long.

@@andrewpetersen5272 does that stop the Brahms B-flat? That’s slightly longer than this.

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?

@@user-fn1dn3fb2b Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra, the time of recording could be 1991.

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…

I agree, absolutely. Bruce’s London debut was exceptional and invigorating.

Check Gilels's interpretation

Actually, the 3rd movement is a tour de force for virtuoso pianists of the highest caliber (Kantorow, Bruce Liu)…

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 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.

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

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.

Peter Lunow -- But cheated out of the 2nd Mvt string duet......

Oh please. Just stop.

Love this conductor's style.

looks like Vladimir fedoseyev

10:54

Saverio Beccacece Mi piacerebbepoter comprendere meglio il senso di "russo".... Suono "russo"... E via dicendo. Sarebbe cosi gentile da spiegarlo? Grazie.

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.