The score I used here is the one published by Boosey and Hawkes. Seems like they used the first edition which is the 1928 revision and pasted the manuscript of original 1926 version in the score, so that should indicate you which parts are the ones omitted from the revisions. P.S. The theme at 20:47 and 27:12 is so gorgeous... it's so unfortunate that it essentially is nowhere to be heard in the 1941 version.
I would absolutely love a PDF of this, I've been trying to find it for the longest time!!! The OG version of the fourth Concerto is one of his most beautiful pieces, on par with symphonic dances...
The themes are actually exactly put in the same place as the occur here in the revised version, the melody is slightly modified and the style is totally changed
@@therakeshkrishna Yeah, though in the 1941 revision Rachmaninov rewrote it quite a bit, but with the same material: The trumpet calls on the background became the main theme and the dies irae tinged melody became an afterthought, appearing like once on the violins.
Three passages I really miss in the final 1941 version: 26:26 - this is a fantastic conclusion to the climax. In the final version, Rach just repeats the beginning from 0:00. 27:13 - beautiful recapitulation of the second theme, as well as 27:34. Reminds me of Medtner. Btw the second version from 1928 version is also great!
the version of the piece aside, i think sudbin's playing should deserve recognition as well... very tasteful and varied like for example just the rubato on the opening theme that makes the piano just slighly off from the orchestra, and also the rolling of some of the chords... very yummy stuff
This feels all more connected than 1941 version. When I listened to 1941 version, I just could not stop thinking that this feels all separated. But now this feels like a real consummated Rachmaninoff's concerto.
I think the transition from 9:10 to 9:58 is a crucial passage. Keeping it may be a better choice. Especially from 9:42 to 9:58, it reached a climax of beauty.
Same here. Although I agree with his revisions of the stormy middle section of the 2nd movement. In my opinion, his revisions of that section flow better than in the original version
@@anteb.k.8396 I think some ideas Rach tried to develop weren't 'major' enough to be its own passage but some motifs should've been kept and maybe incorporated into other parts. It's, as you said, more of a repetitive problem than a musical one.
regarding 3rd mvmt - I like original's recapitulation of the 2nd theme (27:13) because those harmonies are wonderful - however i also like the revised 3rd movement's cyclical return to the 1st movement's climax (6:50) as it is a glorious apotheosis -- I wish someone could write a mixed version that retains the return of the 2nd theme's as well as somehow incorporate the 1st mvmt's climax ..... but who am i to judge rachmaninoff's vision(s) - it's just that for both editions - the 3rd movement leaves me cold and wanting more ...
@@AndrewKierszenbaum Sorry, it's the only score of this I could find! However, the handwritten bits are actually the cut bits compared from the 1928 first edition, which seems to also be the engraved parts here. So while it is quite difficult to read, it is also extremely insightful to know the parts Rachmaninov cut out from the first edition. It is certainly an interesting decision of the publisher, Boosey and Hawkes.
At 5:16 a plane is slowly moving on a runway, preparing for the takeoff, making turns, getting up some speed, then at 6:34 the plane starts accelerating on a runway, the engines are roaring, at 6:50 the epic take-off is happening and the plane is smoothly lifting off above the land (breathtaking goosebumps), at 7:15 and after... the plane is gliding above the beautiful landscape.... Something similar is happening in the 3rd movement of a new version.
that build-up is idiomatic of the development sections of rach's larger scale works (im thinking development of 1st sonata or 2nd symphony) where he will just write suave's of music where melodic content isn't the primary interest, but he instead focuses on orchestral layering, sonorities and colours that just go on and transmogrify your ears - and you can't help but just be lost in it. He tends to do that for quite prolonged periods of time, and at times one can feel that the music is wandering aimlessly and its simply atmosphere without content - where your just aching for a climax... though when it does (inevitably) arrive (6:51) it is quite catharctic.....
Interestingly, he had one extra beat in the final measure… allowing his trademark ending using his name, as he did in concertos 2 and 3. In the final revision you have to stat the “Rach”on the downbeat of the final bar. Thanks for posting this. I’ve enjoyed several times.
Thank you for posting this! I mostly agree with his cuts to the original first movement, as numerous parts of that movement do feel superfluous; however, I wish he hadn't cut and recreated so much of the second and final movements, especially the triumphant theme at 20:47 (in my opinion, it is so much more beautiful and dignified than the rather, dare I say, corny beginning of it in the 1941 version), the climax's conclusion at 26:26, and that beautiful B major recapitulation utilizing major 7ths at 27:13 (I have no clue what could've possessed Rachmaninoff to scrap such a gorgeous part). The only reconstruction I agree with in the latter two movements is his reworking of the stormy middle section of the second movement except for getting rid of the rapidly descending chords at the end of the stormy section. To me, the 1941 version of that section sounds better. So, in my opinion, a "perfect" version that combines the 1941 version (I highly recommend the Michelangeli recording on olla-vogala's channel: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ts3Q4VIkLv0.html) and this original 1926 version would be: - The 1941 version of the first movement, with 9:59 of the 1926 version of the 1st mvmt. to the end of it; - The 1926 version of the 2nd mvmt., except for 15:20 to 15:51 (replace this with 13:15 to 13:30 of the Michelangeli recording on olla-vogala's video); - The entire, UNALTERED 1926 version of the 3rd mvmt.
Interestingly, he had one extra beat in the final measure… allowing his trademark ending using his name, as he did in concertos 2 and 3. In the final revision you have to stat the “Rach”on the downbeat of the final bar. Thanks for posting this. I’ve enjoyed several times.
Thank you so much for posting this! I've been looking for the 2-piano reduction of the original version for a long time now....may I ask how did you come across his handwritten score? I've asked the print department from Boosey about the 2-piano reduction and they replied that they are unable to locate the original version of this and only have the full score. I got frustrated and ended up writing my own reduction from the full score instead...do you happen to have a PDF version of this available?
Original versions are always great and innovative, but I have to say the second theme in 3rd movement from revised(1941) version is in my opinion really so touching, 😢 it’s just sounds like the old master was remembering all of his sweet and beautiful memories in his best time in russia, but those memories will never come true again until his death.. 😢😢
Now that I think about it, the 1926 and 1941 versions really has quite different emotional trajectories, while the 2nd theme of the 1941 version felt like a remembrance of old memories (especially with the original 1926 theme only appearing as sort of an afterthought in the violins once), the 1926 felt more like an exploration, it's like Rachmaninov's romantic style crashing with his new influences from his time in the United States.
Very interesting from the perspective of a composer; While I am probably biased by my knowledge of the “final” version, which I consider an absolute masterpiece, I can understand why he revised it. I probably need to listen to this version a few more times, but especially the third movement seems less connected than the 1941 version. Thank you for all this work!!
To be fair, the Etude-Tableau was never published in his lifetime so it makes sense for him wanting to use that theme somewhere... and at least he added lovely improvisational passages over it! (which sadly is replaced by rather flat repeated chords in the 1941 version...)
@@musicboiscores Yes, I knew that! I'm not saying Rachmaninov is lazy or anything, this theme fits really well here. I feel it has more purpose than in the original Etude which, to me, feels like two completely unrelated ideas he didn't know how to use elsewhere. I'm glad he found a way in this beautiful concerto
![Sergei Rachmaninov - Piano Concerto No. 4, Op. 40 (1926 original version) [with score]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
